Punjab & Haryana HC Overturns Family Court Order, Says Past Employment No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Last Updated on November 19, 2024 by Amit Patra

In a significant order underscoring that courts must remain alive to social realities, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside an order of a Family Court denying maintenance to a wife merely for the reason that she was once a director of a company owned by her brother. Justice Sumeet Goel, while pronouncing the judgment, clarified that the courts cannot decide from an “ivory tower” and should instead focus on practical realities rather than abstract legal interpretations. The Court further mentioned that judicial decisions must not only embody the rule of law but also the kinetic conditions of society.

The case emerged from a challenge to a Family Court order that had denied interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife while granting Rs. 8,000 to her minor son. The primary contention revolved around the denial of maintenance based on the wife’s previous employment as a director in a company, which her counsel argued was merely nominal and predated her marriage.

The High Court recognised that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, applies to the wife’s ‘inability to maintain herself’ in the present and cannot apply to the wife’s past employment or financial self-sufficiency. Justice Goel reasoned that the situation changes, and earlier employment cannot be a valid reason to disallow maintenance. The Court observed that she had left her position in her brother’s company upon marriage, and this fact alone cannot disentitle her from getting interim maintenance.

Considering the husband’s monthly income of approximately Rs. 86,000, the Court stressed the need for a fair balance between the husband’s financial capacity and the wife’s reasonable needs. It modified the Family Court’s order, directing the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month to the wife from the date of filing the petition until the main case’s decision. What this judgment categorically sets as an important precedent is that past employment cannot be a sole ground for denial of maintenance and that courts must consider current financial realities rather than any historical employment status.