Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the principle that a woman’s independent income does not automatically disqualify her from seeking maintenance from her husband if such income is insufficient for a dignified living. In RPFC Nos. 476 & 409 of 2017, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s decision denying maintenance to the wife and awarded her ₹8,000 per month, while maintaining ₹6,000 per month for each child, as originally ordered by the Family Court.
This judgment strengthens the jurisprudence on women’s rights under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) and reiterates that maintenance laws exist as a social-welfare remedy, not merely a financial entitlement.
Background of the Case
The marriage between Jeesha P. and Rajeevan M. resulted in two children. Marital discord separated the spouses, and the wife, along with the children, filed a maintenance petition claiming:
| Claimant | Amount Sought |
|---|---|
| Wife | ₹15,000/month |
| Each Child | ₹10,000/month |
However, the Family Court, Thalassery (09.08.2017) dismissed the wife’s claim entirely and granted only ₹6,000/month per child.
Both sides moved the High Court in revision:
| Revision Petition | Filed By | Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| RPFC 409/2017 | Wife & Children | Rejection of wife’s maintenance + low maintenance for children |
| RPFC 476/2017 | Husband | Maintenance awarded to children is excessive |
Issues Before the Court
- Can an earning wife be denied maintenance?
- What is the meaning of wife being “unable to maintain herself”?
- Did the wife have just cause to live separately?
- Whether the awarded maintenance for children should be modified?
Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning
1. Maintenance is a Social Justice Obligation
Justice Edappagath reaffirmed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) serves a protective and remedial function and must be interpreted liberally for the welfare of women and children.
The judgment highlights that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” does not mean extreme poverty or homelessness. Even if a woman earns some income, she is entitled to maintenance if such income is insufficient for basic sustenance.
The court relied on landmark precedents such as:
| Case | Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Earning wife may still claim maintenance |
| Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 | Employment not a bar to maintenance |
| Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199 | Capability to earn ≠ disentitlement |
| Jayaprakash E.P. v. Sheney P. (2025 1 KLT 815) | Even earning wives may receive maintenance |
2. Wife’s Income Was Not Proven – No Justification for Rejection
The Family Court denied maintenance, arguing the wife was a tailor and capable of earning. But the High Court found no concrete proof of steady income:
- Her occupation was marked as a tailor in the marriage certificate
- She was a member of the Tailors’ Association
- She visited her brother’s tailoring shop occasionally
However, there was no evidence of permanent employment or stable income.
The Court held:
Occasional or insufficient earnings cannot justify denial of maintenance.
Even a working woman may struggle to survive independently if her income is minimal.
3. Wife Had Sufficient Reason to Live Separately
Under Section 125(4), maintenance can be denied if the wife voluntarily deserts the husband without reasonable cause. But here, the High Court found credible allegations of cruelty:
- Husband returned home drunk
- Long late-night calls causing suspicion
- Physical and mental harassment
- Denial of conjugal relationship since 2009
- Forced to sleep separately and not share bed
The husband’s failure to take her back after leaving her at her parental home was also significant.
The High Court held that the wife’s separation was justified and critically reversed the Family Court’s contrary inference.
4. Husband’s Financial Capacity was Intentionally Underplayed
The husband claimed he earned only ₹750/day and produced a salary certificate. But
- He did not examine the employer to prove authenticity
- He is an able-bodied 46-year-old tailor capable of sufficient income
The Court applied the principle from Rajnesh v. Neha — a healthy adult cannot escape liability by claiming unemployment or inadequate income.
Final Decision of the Court
| Beneficiary | Monthly Maintenance Awarded |
|---|---|
| Wife | ₹8,000 (from date of petition) |
| Each Child | ₹6,000 (confirmed as reasonable) |
- Husband’s revision dismissed.
- Wife & children’s revision allowed partly.
Conclusion
This judgment is a reiteration of a progressive and humane legal approach where maintenance is treated as a basic right flowing from marital responsibility, not a concession to be granted sparingly. Kerala High Court, through this decision, has clearly underlined that an earning wife is still entitled to support if her earnings cannot meet the necessities of life. The ruling not only safeguards the economic dignity of separated women but also reinforces the protective purpose of Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams