The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court rulings<\/a><\/strong> and finally ordered the husband to pay the wife \u20b98,000 per month.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, the wife and her two children had approached the Family Court<\/strong> asking for \u20b915,000 per month for the wife and \u20b910,000 per month for each child. The Family Court rejected the wife\u2019s maintenance claim but granted \u20b96,000 per month to each child. The wife challenged this order before the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court referred to the Supreme Court verdicts in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018)<\/em>, Rajnesh v. Neha (2021)<\/em>, and Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014)<\/em>,<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While discussing the legal position, the Court reiterated an important principle and said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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]).”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court had denied her maintenance only because she was \u201ccapable<\/strong>\u201d 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 \u201ctailor<\/strong>\u201d as her occupation and that she had a membership in a tailors\u2019 association. The High Court said these facts do not prove she was actually earning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court explained that occasional work cannot become a reason to deny maintenance. It said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The wife\u2019s 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.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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>),<\/strong> a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she leaves the husband without sufficient cause<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> with her since 2009. Her testimony about cruelty was not challenged in cross-examination<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court accepted her testimony and concluded that she had sufficient grounds to live separately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After assessing the income and ability of the husband, the Court fixed the wife\u2019s maintenance at \u20b98,000 per month. It did not increase the children\u2019s maintenance<\/strong> of \u20b96,000 each, as that amount was found reasonable based on the circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"Kerala](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Kerala-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")