The Kerala High Court ruled that a wife can seek maintenance even if she is skilled or capable of working, as long as she does not have a steady or sufficient income. The Court held that temporary or occasional income cannot disqualify her claim.
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a wife can still claim maintenance from her husband even if she knows a skill or is capable of working and earning some money. The Court said that simply having the capability to work does not stop a woman from getting maintenance, especially when she does not have a proper, permanent source of income.
The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings and finally ordered the husband to pay the wife ₹8,000 per month.
In this case, the wife and her two children had approached the Family Court asking for ₹15,000 per month for the wife and ₹10,000 per month for each child. The Family Court rejected the wife’s maintenance claim but granted ₹6,000 per month to each child. The wife challenged this order before the High Court.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court verdicts in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018), Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), all of which draw a clear difference between a woman who is actually earning enough and a woman who merely has the ability to earn but is not earning sufficient income.
While discussing the legal position, the Court reiterated an important principle and said:
“The law is well settled that even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning something, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband (Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. [2025 (1) KLT 815]).”
The wife said she knew tailoring but did not have steady work or enough income to take care of herself and her children. She also told the Court that she lived separately because her husband treated her cruelly and that he earned enough as a tailor to pay maintenance.
The Family Court had denied her maintenance only because she was “capable” of earning. The High Court disagreed with this view. It noted that the husband did not produce any proper evidence to show she was earning regularly. The only facts shown were that her marriage certificate mentioned “tailor” as her occupation and that she had a membership in a tailors’ association. The High Court said these facts do not prove she was actually earning.
The Court explained that occasional work cannot become a reason to deny maintenance. It said:
“The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance. For these reasons, the finding in the impugned order that the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband cannot be sustained. The Family Court erred in not awarding maintenance to the wife, who does not have any permanent source of income.”
The Court also examined whether the wife had valid reasons to live separately from her husband, since under Section 125(4) CrPC (now Section 144(4) BNSS), a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she leaves the husband without sufficient cause.
The wife had testified that the husband physically and mentally tortured her, came home drunk, talked for long hours on the phone, refused to share his bed, forced her to sleep separately, and had not had sexual relations with her since 2009. Her testimony about cruelty was not challenged in cross-examination.
The High Court accepted her testimony and concluded that she had sufficient grounds to live separately.
After assessing the income and ability of the husband, the Court fixed the wife’s maintenance at ₹8,000 per month. It did not increase the children’s maintenance of ₹6,000 each, as that amount was found reasonable based on the circumstances.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned
| Law / Section Mentioned | What It Means (Simple English) | Relevance in this Case |
| Section 125 CrPC (Now Section 144 BNSS) | Provision allowing wife, children, or parents to claim maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves. | Core basis for wife’s claim. Court stressed this must be interpreted liberally. Husband with means must support wife unless she has sufficient reason not to live with him. |
| Section 125(4) CrPC / Section 144(4) BNSS | Wife cannot claim maintenance if she left husband without sufficient reason. | Court held wife had valid reasons — cruelty and separation proved. So she is still entitled. |
| Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 20(3) | Both parents must maintain their children. | Husband argued wife must contribute too; Court rejected due to lack of proof of her income. |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court held that even an earning wife is not barred from maintenance. | Used to reject Family Court’s view that “capability to earn = no maintenance”. |
| Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 | Supreme Court said “wife earning a small amount still deserves maintenance.” | Strengthened the point that occasional/insufficient income is not a bar. |
| Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 | SC distinguished between capability to earn and actual income. | Court relied heavily on this — capability ≠ actual income. |
| Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. [2025 (1) KLT 815] | Kerala HC said capability or minor income doesn’t bar maintenance claim. | Quoted directly by the Court in this case. |
| Article 15(3) of Constitution | Allows special provisions for women and children. | Reinforces social justice nature of maintenance laws. |
| Article 39 (Directive Principles) | State to protect weaker sections, ensure basic livelihood. | Court mentioned this to justify liberal interpretation of maintenance laws. |
- Case Title: RP(FC) No. 476/2017 & RP(FC) No. 409/2017 (Challenges arising from MC No. 45/2017, Family Court Thalassery)
- Court / Bench: Kerala High Court Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
- Order dated: 12 November 2025
Parties
- Wife: First Petitioner before Family Court
- Children: Petitioners 2 & 3
- Husband: Respondent before Family Court
Revision Petitions
- RP(FC) 409/2017 – Filed by wife and children
- RP(FC) 476/2017 – Filed by husband
Counsels
- For Husband: Adv. R. Surendran
- For Wife & Children: Adv. K.C. Santhosh Kumar and Adv. K.K. Chandralekha
Family Court Order (Impugned)
- Wife’s maintenance: Rejected
- Children’s maintenance: ₹6,000 per month each
High Court’s Final Directions
- Husband must pay ₹8,000/month to wife
- Children’s maintenance remains ₹6,000/month each
- Husband’s challenge dismissed
- Wife’s challenge allowed in part
Key Takeaways
- Courts continue to expand maintenance even when the wife admits she can work, pushing the entire financial burden on the husband alone.
- “Capability to earn” is still ignored, meaning men remain obligated even when wives possess skills or side income.
- Family Courts often deny husbands’ evidence of wives’ earning capacity unless it reaches an impossible standard of proof.
- Allegations of cruelty, even without documents or corroboration, are accepted as “sufficient reason” for wives to live separately and still claim money.
- The ruling reinforces how maintenance law remains one-sided, keeping husbands permanently financially liable regardless of the wife’s ability to support herself.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.