Financially Stable Wife Cannot Claim Maintenance: HC

Intellectually speaking, there is no law in India that does not have room to be misused. In the recent past, our legal machinery has proactively worked for the welfare of the women of this nation, and concerns are sometimes raised that some of these provisions are misused. The cruelty offence formerly known as Section 498A IPC is now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, with Section 86 defining “cruelty” by a husband or his relatives. (On enforcement, it is worth correcting a common misconception: National Crime Records Bureau data records the number of persons arrested as accused in cases registered under the then Section 498A IPC — and a large share of those arrested are themselves women, namely female relatives of the husband such as mothers- and sisters-in-law. Such figures count persons arrested as accused; they are not a count of women “arrested for filing false cases,” and should not be read as a measure of false complaints. Any specific statistic on this point should be taken from the official NCRB “Crime in India” reports rather than from advocacy-group summaries.)

In the light of the above there are so many provisions to which even the Courts sometimes rethink before giving their decisions. The same happens so many times when it comes to the issue of claiming maintenance from the side of wives. The provisions for maintenance came into existence in the light of the facts that rich husbands have to pay a pre-determined amount to his wife if he takes divorce from her. But women started taking advantages of it and even well-flourished women also started demanding maintenance from their husbands in the legal corridors.

Only a wife with no sufficient source of permanent income can claim maintenance from her husband, the Bombay high court has ruled. A division bench of Justice Vijaya Kapse-Tahilramani and Justice P N Deshmukh rejected an application by an Andheri resident, Sheela Sharma (61), who had sought Rs 15,000 as monthly maintenance from her husband, Nitin Sharma, who is based in Australia.

“It is a well-settled law that only a wife who has no sufficient permanent source of income can claim and get maintenance from her husband who has sufficient means,” said the judges. The Sharmas have a son and daughter who are married and settled abroad. The couple has been living separately since 2007.

It should be noted that, as of 1 July 2024, the general maintenance provision earlier found in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023; the statutory test remains substantially the same. This exact topic — whether and how much maintenance an earning or financially independent wife can claim — is now governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 2 SCC 324. In that judgment the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines, including a mandatory affidavit of assets and liabilities to be filed by both spouses, and the criteria for assessing maintenance where the wife is herself earning, so that the award is fair to both sides rather than automatic.

The court pointed out that it had come in evidence that Sheela had invested Rs 50 lakh in fixed deposits and also made investments in mutual funds. She has also invested another Rs 2 lakh that she got from Nitin in a fixed deposit. She resides in a flat that she had bought with Nitin, who said she had exclusive possession of the house. This meant there was no rent to be paid. “It is seen that the wife is getting more than Rs 37,500 per month as interest. She has more than Rs 50 lakh in the bank. In addition, (her) son is providing money for her maintenance and other expenses. No one is dependent,” said the judges.

Nitin had moved the court for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, which was dismissed by a family court. Meanwhile, Sheela too moved the court. The family court allowed her plea and granted the couple judicial separation and asked Nitin to shell out Rs 25,000 as monthly maintenance. Nitin challenged the maintenance order and a single bench of the HC set aside the maintenance order. Following this, Sheela challenged the orders and sought Rs 15,000 as maintenance.

REF. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Financially-stable-wife-cant-claim-maintenance-Bombay-high-court/articleshow/30918626.cms

If you need any further information or clarification in this regard, please feel free to contact us or post your queries on our website where one of our exclusively appointed legal experts will help you more: delhi-lawyers.in