The issue of maintenance in cases of marital disputes is a complex and contentious matter. Traditionally, wives have been granted maintenance by their husbands based on the assumption that they are financially dependent. However, there is a growing recognition that the capability of the wife to earn should be considered when determining maintenance obligations. This article delves into the legal perspective surrounding the entitlement of a wife to maintenance when she is capable of earning, citing five detailed case studies that highlight the evolving approach of the courts.

Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017):

In this case, the Delhi High Court ruled that the wife, who possessed a professional degree and was capable of earning, should not be entitled to maintenance. The court held that maintenance should not be granted when the wife has the means and ability to support herself independently.

Smt. Rachna v. Shri Rajesh Kumar (2018):

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in this case, emphasized the importance of assessing the wife’s educational qualifications, skills, work experience, and employment opportunities while determining maintenance. The court held that if the wife is capable of earning and has the means to support herself, maintenance may not be warranted.

Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2015):

The Supreme Court of India, in this landmark case, highlighted the changing societal dynamics and recognized the principle of “maintenance as a right and not as a bounty.” The court stated that the wife’s capability to earn and her financial independence should be considered when deciding the quantum of maintenance. The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach based on the individual circumstances of each case.

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006):

In this case, the Delhi High Court acknowledged that maintenance should not be viewed as a lifelong entitlement and that the wife’s capability to earn should be taken into account. The court emphasized that maintenance should aim to provide support until the wife becomes self-sufficient, encouraging her to enhance her skills and employability.

Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2019):

The Karnataka High Court, in this case, observed that if the wife is well-educated, has work experience, and is capable of earning, maintenance should be denied or reduced accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the financial responsibilities of both parties based on their respective earning capacities.

The entitlement of a wife to maintenance when she is capable of earning is a nuanced issue. While the traditional notion of maintenance as an inherent right continues to prevail, courts in India have increasingly recognized the importance of considering the wife’s financial independence and employability. The case studies discussed in this article shed light on the evolving approach of the courts, emphasizing the need for a contextual and fair assessment of each case. Ultimately, the aim should be to strike a balance that ensures the financial well-being of both parties while encouraging the wife’s empowerment and self-sufficiency.