Response

In the case titled Shalija & Ors. Vs. Khobbanna the HonÕble Supreme Court held that Ôcapable of earningÕ and Ôactually earningÕ are two different concepts and merely because the wife is capable to earn money doesnÕt give sufficient reason to the court to reduce the maintenance awarded to her.

Here, the HonÕble Court clearly held that the qualification of the wife per se doesnÕt create any barriers for the wives to seek maintenance from their husbands.

The HonÕble Supreme Court in the case titled Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabhai has categorically held that merely because the wife earns some amount doesnÕt disqualify her to seek maintenance from her husband under the provision of this Act.

The litmus test is that whether the amount is sufficient for her to maintain and support herself.

In the case titled Amit Kumar vs. Navjot Dubey, the HonÕble High Court of Punjab and Haryana refused to interfere with the decision of the lower court where the maintenance pendent lite under the provision of this act, was provided to the wife who was earning more than her husband.

However, she was taking care of her two children.

The HonÕble High Court vide the aforesaid order affirmed the right to maintenance for working wives.

Reference: Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 125 of the CrPC, 1974; Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2002; [ CASE LAWS] – Shalija & Ors. Vs. Khobbanna, Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabhai, Amit Kumar vs. Navjot Dubey

2021001542021004114905

LAWAYZ-2023-799