The Supreme Court has held that a woman deserted or divorced by her husband is entitled to alimony if she is unable to maintain herself out of her own income.
While deciding maintenance claims, it has to be examined whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the same way as she used to be at her husband's house before their separation, the apex court said.
Drawing an interesting illustration, the apex court said if a divorced/deserted wife is forced to beg for a living it does not mean that she is capable of earning.
"Where wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning. But she was not making any effort to earn," a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, observed.
The bench passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh resident, Chaturbhuj, challenging a trial court's decision to award the Rs 1,500 monthly maintenance allowance to his estranged wife, Sita Bai.
A Sessions Court and later the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court's decision following which Chaturbhuj appealed in the apex court.
Under Section 125 CrPC, the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living, which is neither luxurious, nor penurious; but what is consistent with the status of a family, the apex court said.
Section 125 CrPC mandates payment of maintenance of allowance by a husband to his wife/parents/ minor children, if either of them is unable to maintain herself/himself out of their own income.
The expression 'unable to maintain herself' does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125Cr.PC, the bench observed.
In this case, Sita Bai had claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself with limited resources at her disposal. Chaturbhuj, who is a retired assistant director of the State Agriculture Department, had contended that Sita Bai was already living in the house constructed by him on a 7 bigha land in her name at Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh's Neemuch district.
He claimed that Sita Bai had sold the agriculture land and earned money out of it and hence was not entitled to any maintenance.
However, the apex court after perusing the rival claims and findings of subordinate courts found that there was enough evidence to suggest that Sita Bai did not have the means to maintain herself.
© 2026