Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

498fighter   09 August 2016

125crpc query

I'm looking for judgements where courts directed a highly qualified but non-working wife to find a suitable job, instead of sitting idle. No children therefore no additional responsibilities. This is with regard to 125crpc. Ps: Heard some judgements are given regarding this in DV & divorce cases but I'm not concerned with that.


 3 Replies

Amandeep singh   09 August 2016

Crpc 125 provide bodyable means able to work

498fighter   10 August 2016

Originally posted by : Amandeep singh
Crpc 125 provide bodyable means able to work

Sorry..Didn't get you. I know that section speaks about men.Does your reply imply that women who has able body should earn herself?

Mukesh sharma (job )     10 August 2016

Hey find here  mention case read it 


Husband is not bound to maintain a well qualified wife who is sitting idle and not working




Family Court, Mumbai: Looking at the burden on the husband to provide maintenance to his wife even in cases where the wife is well educated and capable enough to earn for her living, a bench of S.A. Morey J gave a landmark judgment in favour of husband to curb the misuse of the provision of maintenance, and held that a wife who is well qualified and is capable to earn cannot sit idle and claim maintenance from her husband.

In the instant case, petitioner-wife moved an application before this Court for grant of maintenance from the respondent-husband during the pendency of petition under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner alleged that she was forced to live separately as the respondent and his family members ill-treated and harassed her for bringing less dowry. The petitioner contended that the respondent is a successful businessman and is doing business not only in India but also in Dubai and other countries, and that his total income per month is more than Rs. 15 lakhs, and therefore considering the status of her husband, she prayed for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 2 lakhs per month.

Firstly, the Court rejected the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to get maintenance as she is not legally wedded wife and that marriage between them was dissolved by way of talaq, and held that Section 125 CrPC itself has given definition of ‘wife’ which includes divorcee wife and makes clear that a Muslim woman who is either divorcee or who obtained divorce is entitled to get maintenance till her remarriage, and therefore respondent’s contention does not affect the right of the petitioner to claim maintenance. Secondly, the Court observed that the petitioner is well qualified, has completed degree in Food and Science Nutrician, is Post Graduate in Dietician field, had worked as a dietician with an income of Rs. 50000 per month, and has experience of working with reputed companies like Larsen and Toubro etc but at present she is not working.

The Court relied on Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100, where it was held that “well qualified wife is not entitled to remain as an idle and claim maintenance from her husband”. The Court noted that the facts of the present case clearly shows that the petitioner is having good capacity to earn and therefore held that “the wife who is well qualified and claiming maintenance by sitting idle is not entitled to get maintenance”. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Firdos Mohd. Shoeb Khan v. Mohd. Shoeb Mohd. Salim Khandecided on 20.02.2015

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query