Telangana High Court: Sathish Reddy, J., while addressing a maintenance case, expressed that, the wife’s earning capacity cannot be a bar from awarding her maintenance.
Factual Background
Instant case was filed by the petitioners to set aside the order of the lower Court wherein the said petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 125 (1) CrPC seeking interim maintenance which was allowed directing the first respondent to pay Rs 7,000 per month each to petitioners 2 and 3.
Petitioner 1 was the wife and petitioners 2 and 3, children of the first respondent. Further, the petitioners a petition before the lower Court was filed seeking interim maintenance of Rs 12,000 per month to each of the petitioners 2 and 3 and Rs 10,000 per month to petitioner 1.
Further, the Family Court directed the first respondent, the husband of petitioner 1, to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month each to petitioners 2 and 3 towards interim maintenance from the date of the petition, pending disposal of maintenance case. The petition to the extent of petitioner 1 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred this revision.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court stated that the Supreme Court decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, made it amply clear that,
“If wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from awarding maintenance to suit the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.”
In the present matter, Family Court had only dismissed the interim application filed by the first petitioner on the ground that she herself had mentioned that she was earning Rs 20,000/- per month.
In Court’s opinion, Family Court had passed a well-reasoned order which required no interference. [Nikhat Fatima v. Syed Razi Ahmed, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 911, decided on 21-4-2022]
