Prayagraj Bench holds that mere employment does not automatically disqualify a spouse’s claim under Section 125 CrPC where disparity in earning capacity exists
Prayagraj, [Date: 15 February 2026]: A single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a wife’s employment or professional qualifications cannot automatically be used to deny her claim for maintenance against her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), especially where there is a significant disparity in the parties’ earning capacities.
The judgment came in a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging a family court’s grant of maintenance to his estranged wife. The Bench held that the fact of employment does not necessarily mean the wife is capable of maintaining a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.
Case Title & Bench
- Suman Verma and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- Bench: Justice Garima Prashad, Allahabad High Court
- Date of judgment: Early January 2026
- Statute: Section 125 CrPC
Background
The dispute arose from a maintenance order passed by a family court in Bulandshahr, which awarded interim maintenance to the wife. The husband challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that his wife’s qualifications and ability to earn should bar her maintenance claim.
The family court had refused maintenance, taking the view that the wife was capable of gainful employment, a position that the husband contended justified dismissal of her application.
Legal Issue
The main legal question before the Court was whether a spouse’s educational qualifications, vocational skills, or theoretical capacity to earn can be equated with actual ability to maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during matrimonial life, and whether these factors alone can be a ground to deny a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Court’s Ruling
The High Court held that employment alone cannot operate as a blanket bar to a maintenance claim. It noted that Section 125 CrPC aims to protect spouses who are genuinely unable to maintain themselves, but the presence of qualifications or potential employability does not ipso facto disqualify a claim.
The bench stressed that the mere fact that a wife holds degrees or vocational training cannot lead to the presumption that she is gainfully employed or earning sufficiently to sustain herself at the level enjoyed during the marriage. It distinguished between potential to earn and actual income available for maintenance.
Reasoning of the Court
In its reasoning, the Court observed that many women sacrifice professional pursuits to take on household responsibilities and caregiving roles; upon separation, presumed employability does not translate into actual income or financial independence.
The High Court also noted that denying maintenance merely on the basis of educational qualifications fails to account for social realities, such as the difficulty in re-entering the workforce after years dedicated to domestic duties.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the family court order that had rejected the maintenance claim, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the family court to reassess in light of these principles.
Practical Implications
- Clarifies the scope of Section 125 CrPC: The judgment emphasizes that actual ability to maintain oneself, not theoretical employability, is the determinative factor in maintenance cases.
- Impact on family court proceedings: Trial courts will now be guided to focus on evidence of the claimant’s real earning capacity and needs, rather than mere qualifications.
- Recognition of social realities: By acknowledging the impact of domestic responsibilities on a woman’s employment prospects, the ruling brings judicial recognition to social and economic dimensions in maintenance disputes.
- National jurisprudence alignment: The decision aligns with recent case law from other High Courts that recognize a spouse’s right to maintenance even in the presence of educational qualifications if actual employment or income is insufficient.
The judgment adds clarity on the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC, affirming that employment or educational qualifications alone cannot justify denial of maintenance when a wife’s actual financial situation and standard of living are factored into the statutory framework.
