Wife's Right to Maintenance Despite Employment

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath in the case of Rajeevan M. v. Jeesha P. and Others (2025) held that even if a wife is earning or has the capability to earn, she is not disentitled from claiming maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the income is insufficient for her maintenance. 

What was the Background of Rajeevan M. v. Jeesha P. and Others (2025) Case? 

• The case involved a legally wedded couple - Jeesha P. (wife) and Rajeevan M. (husband) - with two minor children. 
• The wife and children filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, Thalassery, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- for the wife and Rs. 10,000/- each for the two children. 
• The Family Court rejected the wife's claim for maintenance but granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- each to the children. 
• The wife filed RP(FC) No. 409/2017 challenging the rejection of her maintenance claim and the quantum awarded to the children. 
• The husband filed RP(FC) No. 476/2017 challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children. 
• The Family Court had denied maintenance to the wife on two grounds: (i) the wife is a tailor by profession and has sufficient means to maintain herself, and (ii) the wife left the company of the husband without any valid reason. 
• According to the wife's evidence, the husband exercised cruelty on her, took her to her parental house on 19.09.2014, and never came to take her back. 
• The husband contended that he was employed as a tailor earning only Rs. 750/- per day, while the wife claimed he ran his own tailoring shop with substantial income. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that Section 125 of CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS) is a measure of social justice enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional scheme of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39, and must be construed liberally. 
• The Court held that "unable to maintain herself" does not mean the wife must be in a state of penury, and even if a wife is earning or capable of earning, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. 
• The Court cited key Supreme Court precedents including Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), and Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) establishing this principle. 
• The Court found that merely showing "tailor" as occupation in the marriage certificate and membership in the Tailors' Association, without evidence of actual employment and income, would not bar maintenance claims. 
• The Court held that temporary or occasional work providing some income would not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance if she asserts that the income is insufficient for her needs. 
• The Court assessed the wife's evidence of cruelty, including physical and mental torture, being forced to sleep on the floor, and cessation of marital relations, finding these instances sufficient to justify her living separately from the husband. 
• The Court noted that the husband, as an able-bodied 46-year-old person, cannot claim inability to maintain his wife and children merely by producing an unverified salary certificate. 
• The Court dismissed the husband's revision petition, allowed the wife's petition in part, upheld the children's maintenance at Rs. 6,000/- per month each, and awarded Rs. 8,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition. 

What is Section 144 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and financial hardship of a neglected spouse and children. It empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to grant monthly maintenance, interim maintenance, and proceeding expenses to the wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, who is unable to maintain themselves, from a person who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to do so. 
• Key statutory features include: 
  • Section 144(1): Empowers the Magistrate to order monthly maintenance to wife and children. 
  • Second Proviso to Section 144(1): Allows the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and expenses during the pendency of proceedings. 
  • Third Proviso to Section 144(1): Directs that interim maintenance applications should ideally be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice. 
  • Section 144(2): Maintenance may be payable either from the date of application or order, as the Magistrate deems fit. 
  • Section 144(3): Non-payment of maintenance can attract warrant proceedings and imprisonment up to one month. 
  • Section 144(4): Disqualifies the wife from receiving maintenance in cases of adultery, refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause, or mutual consent to live separately. 
  • Further procedural clarity is offered under Section 145(2), which mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or their advocate, with a provision for ex parte proceedings and setting aside such orders upon showing sufficient cause within three months.