Women with income entitled to maintenance: SC

SHARECOMMENTS

In a judgment that gives a wider interpretation to the country's maintenance laws, India's highest court has ruled that a woman
who has been deserted or divorced can claim maintenance from her husband in spite of her efforts to earn a monthly income,
if the money is not enough to provide for the lifestyle she enjoyed before their separation
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband if her independent
income or earnings as a single woman are insufficient to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to whilst living
with her husband.
A two-judge bench of the apex court, in a judgment passed late last month, said that a deserted wife or divorced woman need
not be reduced to a destitute state before filing for maintenance for herself and her children under Section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC).
The order, passed by Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, that should have a significant impact on the rights of married
women, gave wider interpretation to the phrase "unable to maintain herself" and said: "...it would mean the means available to
the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and not the efforts made by her after the desertion". The expression,
the judges added, does not imply that the wife should be destitute before she can apply for maintenance.
The bench gave the ruling whilst upholding a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling endorsing a lower court's verdict ordering a
former state government official to pay Rs 1,500 a month to his former wife to meet her living expenses.
"The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband," said
Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam. "In an illustrative case where [a] wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to
her ability to maintain herself. It can also not be said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an
effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself or not has to be decided on the basis of the material
placed on record," the bench said.
Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat pointed out that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which
was neither luxurious nor penurious but what was consistent with the status of a family. The bench said: "The expression
'unable to maintain herself' (in Section 125 of the CrPC) does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she
can apply for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC."
The bench added that it was of the view that the section envisaged a speedy remedy for the provision of food, clothes and
shelter to the deserted wife.
It said: "The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by
compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to
support."
"Under the law, the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient.
Second, there is an inseparable condition which has to be satisfied, that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two
conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife."
In order to claim the benefit of not paying maintenance, the husband (who has deserted or divorced his wife) must prove that
the wife earned enough to lead a lifestyle similar to the one she led whilst living with her husband, the court said.

The Supreme Court added that there was a social purpose behind Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which entitles
a divorced wife, minor children or old parents to claim maintenance from a husband, father or earning son, respectively.
"Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It gives effect
to the fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to provide maintenance to his wife, children and parents when they are
unable to maintain themselves," the bench said. "It is meant to achieve a social purpose."
A trial court in Neemach in Madhya Pradesh had ordered the state's former agricultural director Chaturbhuj to pay
maintenance to his former wife Sita Bai whom he had divorced, dismissing his plea that she had an independent source of
income from the rent of the house that he had built for himself but had been "grabbed" by her.
Chaturbhuj's revision petition against the order was rejected by a sessions court and later the Indore bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court. The present appeal in the Supreme Court was directed against this order. Chaturbhuj sought to quash
the order contending that he need not pay any maintenance amount as his wife was in a position to maintain herself with her
earnings.
The apex court dismissed his appeal and directed the petitioner to pay Rs 1,500 as monthly maintenance to his wife.
Source: The Hindu, November 29, 2007
Hindustan Times, November 29, 2007