Bench emphasises social realities of domestic duties and actual earning capacity over mere educational qualifications in maintenance claims.
Lucknow, January 12, 2026 – The Allahabad High Court has held that a wife’s high educational qualifications or vocational skills cannot, by themselves, justify denial of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The ruling was delivered by Justice Garima Prashad on January 8, 2026, in a revision petition arising from a maintenance order of the Family Court in Bulandshahr.
Case Title & Procedural Posture
Smt. Suman Verma & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Revision No. 5971 of 2024) saw the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order that had rejected the wife’s maintenance application on the ground that her qualifications made her capable of self-support. The matter has now been remanded to the Family Court for fresh adjudication.
Legal Issue
The principal legal question before the High Court was whether a wife’s educational qualifications and presumed earning capacity, without evidence of actual, gainful employment, could be used to deny her entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband had contended that the wife’s academic and vocational qualifications warranted an inference that she was capable of supporting herself, thereby disqualifying her claim.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court ruled that educational qualifications alone cannot displace the statutory right to maintenance. The bench observed that Section 125 is a provision of social justice, designed to prevent destitution, and that a mere assumption of potential earning capacity based on qualifications is insufficient to deprive a wife of maintenance. It was emphasised that actual employment status and income evidence are critical to such assessments.
The Court directed the Family Court to reassess the maintenance claim afresh, taking into account the husband’s means, actual earnings, and other relevant factors, but not to rely solely on the wife’s qualifications as a surrogate for earning capacity.
Brief Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnised in May 2006, and they have a minor son. The wife, Suman Verma, alleged repeated cruelty, including dowry-related harassment, leading to her separation from the matrimonial home. She sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in April 2021. The Family Court, in its October 3, 2024 order, dismissed the wife’s claim on the ground that she was highly qualified (with an MA and an ITI diploma) and had refused to return after proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, concluding that she could maintain herself. The court, however, granted a token maintenance of ₹3,000 per month for the minor son.
Reasoning of the Court
In setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court made several key observations:
- Distinction Between Potential and Actual Employment: The bench clarified that qualifications do not necessarily translate into actual, gainful employment. A person may possess academic credentials or vocational skills but still be unable to secure meaningful work, especially after prolonged periods devoted to domestic duties.
- Social Realities of Domestic Roles: The court acknowledged that many women devote years to domestic responsibilities and child care, which can make re-entry into the workforce difficult. It held that relying on qualifications alone to infer earning capacity is misplaced and insensitive to such social realities.
- Purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.: The bench reiterated that Section 125 aims to ensure maintenance that upholds dignity and prevents destitution, not merely survival. Thus, the focus must be on actual financial inability, not presumed capacity.
- Requirement of Evidence: The High Court stressed the need for evidence of real income or employment before concluding that a claimant can maintain herself. In the absence of such proof, the statutory right to maintenance remains intact.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had misapplied Section 125 by giving undue weight to educational qualifications without tangible evidence of employment or income.
Practical Implications
- The ruling underscores that educational qualifications alone are insufficient to deny maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless supported by evidence of actual earning capacity.
- Courts are reminded to consider the broader social and economic context of marital breakdowns, including the impact of domestic duties on a spouse’s ability to earn.
- Family Courts should re-evaluate maintenance applications without relying on speculative or presumptive assessments of earning capacity based solely on qualifications.
- The decision may influence lower courts in similar cases where maintenance disputes turn on assumptions about qualifications rather than actual income evidence.
The judgment adds clarity on the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. regarding the relevance of a spouse’s qualifications in maintenance claims, affirming that actual earning capacity, backed by evidence, must form the basis of adjudication rather than presumed potential.
