The Orissa High Court has pushed back against the notion that educated wives who seek maintenance are simply avoiding work to burden their husbands.
Justice G Satapathy, while hearing a husband’s challenge to a family court order directing him to pay ₹10,000 in maintenance to his estranged wife and their adult daughter, made it clear that stereotypes cannot replace evidence.
“It cannot be assumed that a qualified woman chooses not to work merely to harass her husband. Unless there is proof of her actual income or clear earning prospects, it would be unfair to brand her as part of a class of ‘idle women,’” the Court observed.
The husband had argued that his wife, a lawyer, earned more than him and had voluntarily left the marriage. He further claimed she was not entitled to maintenance. The wife countered that her practice brought in little income, she had to support their daughter—a law student—and that her husband had remarried.
Since the second marriage was undisputed, the Court held that the wife had lawful grounds to live apart. It also noted that the husband himself had filed for divorce, weakening his argument of desertion.
On the issue of supporting an adult daughter, the Court clarified that while Section 125 of the CrPC doesn’t explicitly provide for maintenance to a major unmarried daughter, Hindu law recognizes a father’s duty in this regard. “Hindu tradition has long upheld the obligation of a father to maintain his unmarried daughter,” the Court said.
The bench also highlighted that the husband had produced no evidence of his wife’s steady earnings. Simply being enrolled as an advocate, the Court noted, does not guarantee work or income.
Finding no basis to interfere, the High Court upheld the family court’s order.