The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an estranged wife’s right to maintenance cannot be denied because she is “well-educated” and holds a postgraduate degree. The argument, according to High Court Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, is without merit.
“The petitioner’s argument that the respondent-wife is well-educated and holds an MA in Hindi, and thus is not entitled to maintenance, is without merit.”
“The petitioner is a capable man, and the husband is legally and morally responsible to look after his wife and children, as established by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments,” Justice Bhardwaj stated.
Justice Bhardwaj’s decision came in response to a petition filed by a husband challenging an order issued by the Principal Judge (Family Court) on March 7 awarding monthly maintenance of Rs 2,500 from the time the petition was filed until the order was issued. Following that, the wife was ordered to receive Rs 3,600 in monthly maintenance.
In his analysis of the arguments, Justice Bhardwaj stated that the petitioner’s counsel specifically stated that the respondent-wife was unhappy with her marriage and had left the matrimonial home on her own. As a result, she was not entitled to the Family Court’s award of maintenance.
The petitioner’s argument that the respondent-wife is well-educated and has a master’s degree in Hindi and thus is not entitled to maintenance is without merit. The petitioner is a capable man, and the husband is legally and morally responsible for his wife and children, as established by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. — Rajesh Bhardwaj, Justice
Justice Bhardwaj claimed that there was no evidence on the record that the respondent-wife abandoned the petitioner for no apparent reason. “The provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC (on maintenance awarding) are in place to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
Because of the Supreme Court’s judicial precedent, there is no one-size-fits-all formula for granting maintenance. However, it is dependent on a number of factors, including the parties’ status, as well as the claimant’s independent income and property,” Justice Bhardwaj added.
In dismissing the petition, Justice Bhardwaj also stated that the court determined that the wife’s maintenance was reasonable and did not violate the law, after weighing the facts and circumstances of the case on the anvil of the law settled.
“In the overall facts and circumstances, this court finds no infirmity in the Family Court order; thus, the petition is hereby dismissed as being devoid of any merit,” Justice Bhardwaj concluded.