Wife can't be denied maintenance just because she is earning: Calcutta HC
Times of India | 17 September 2025Directing a jobless man to pay his estranged wife Rs 4,000 as monthly maintenance, even though she earns Rs 12,000 per month, the HC said if an able-bodied person chooses to remain unemployed that is his "wilful decision" and cannot be "used as a shield against his legal obligation". The wife had approached the HC after the family court, which is hearing the couple's divorce case, rejected her plea for monthly interim maintenance.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee in his Sept 12 order said, "Once there is no denial of the fact that the husband is an able-bodied young man capable of earning, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation of maintaining his wife equal to the status and strata. The mere fact that the petitioner/wife is earning some amount of money to survive cannot be a reason to deny maintenance, which is a husband's social, legal and moral responsibility.
"
The HC also ticked off the family court for describing the husband as a "poor penniless person" and sermonising the wife that "she should maintain herself within her income so long as the opposite party does not find a job". Justice Mukherjee said these run contrary to the family court's own findings that "her income is small" and that "the status of the husband's family is higher".
It is evident that the opposite party had been sacked from his job due to irregularity.
The husband is not a disabled person. He cannot remain unemployed unless he chooses to remain so.... His decision to remain unemployed cannot be used as a shield against his legal obligation and cannot be a ground for compelling the wife to survive in hardship ignoring the lifestyle she is entitled to,” the court said.
Besides directing the man to pay his wife Rs 4,000 within the 10th of every month, the HC also ordered him to clear the arrears in 12 EMIs within Oct 31, 2026.
The HC, however, clarified that this interim order will not be binding on the final order passed after a fullfledged trial. The estranged couple’s divorce case is still being heard by a family court.
The couple married on Aug 4, 2012 under Special Marriage Act but continued to live with their respective parents. The woman was assured of a social marriage, following which she could move to her matrimonial home in Kolkata.
They consummated the marriage as the husband often came to stay at his wife’s home. But she faced resistance whenever she pressed that she move to his home.
In Aug 2013, the husband said his parents were not willing to let her move to their home in Kolkata. She suggested that they live separately in Panagarh but her husband and in-laws started pressurising her for a mutual divorce. She filed a police complaint on Aug 16, 2013, while the husband filed for divorce.
When the wife applied for an interim monthly maintenance for Rs 10,000, the husband filed a written objection stating that his wife was a working woman and was capable of looking after herself while he was jobless.
