Employed wife not entitled to maintenance: HC

Employed wife not entitled to maintenance: HC 

Techie Challenged Family Court Order, Said Technical Writer-Wife Was Equally Qualified 

Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com 04.11.2026

Bengaluru: A married woman who is well-educated, employed and earns enough to take care of herself cannot claim maintenance from her spouse merely because his income is higher, the high court has ruled, pointing out that the law doesn’t state that a married woman under all circumstances should be maintained by her husband. 

“Inability to maintain herself is a pre-condition to claim maintenance,” Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed in an order passed on Oct 30. Financial independence, employment and self-sufficiency are valid grounds to reject a wife’s claim for maintenance, the court held. 

The order came while allowing a petition filed by a Bengaluru-based software engineer challenging a family court’s July 4, 2025, order directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his wife. The woman had sought Rs 85,000, claiming her husband, a technical team leader at a software company, earned around Rs 40 lakh annually. 

The family court had awarded her Rs 20,000, taking into account his monthly income of over Rs 2 lakh. Challenging the order, the man submitted that his wife was equally qualified and worked as a technical writer for a software company, earning Rs 54,700 per month. He also cited his health condition, stating that he suffers from chronic type 1 diabetes on account of beta thalassaemia, requires insulin injections four times a day and incurs medical expenses of around Rs 70,000 for himself and his parents. 

Justice Sumalatha pointed out that under Section 144 of BNSS-2023, a person seeking maintenance must establish not only that the other party has neglected or refused to maintain them, but also that they are unable to maintain themselves. The court noted that the woman was a BE graduate in computer science and earned Rs 54,700 a month. She had also stated that she spent Rs 35,000 every month towards maintaining her parents, who were dependent on her. 

 “When the wife herself contends that her parents depend on her and that she incurs a sum of Rs 35,000 per month for their maintenance, this court cannot appreciate her stand that she is depending upon her husband,” the judge observed. 

The court acknowledged that the husband’s financial position was better than his wife’s. However, it said the documents produced, including those submitted by the wife, supported his claim that he had substantial expenses because of his health condition. The judge clarified that a wife whose income is insufficient to maintain herself would undoubtedly be entitled to maintenance from her husband, even if she is employed. 

However, in the present case, the wife’s earnings were sufficient to establish that she was not financially dependent on her husband. Setting aside the family court’s order, the high court ruled that the husband could not be held liable to pay maintenance to his wife. The court, however, directed the husband not to initiate recovery proceedings for any maintenance amount already paid to his wife. Noting that the parties were married and wanting to keep open the possibility of an amicable settlement, the judge said the direction was intended to avoid further deterioration of their relationship.