Introduction
The landmark judgment in Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs Anil Kachwaha delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2014 clarified a vital aspect of matrimonial law under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — whether a wife who is employed and earning a modest income is disentitled to claim maintenance. The Court took a socially sensitive and justice-oriented view by affirming that employment alone cannot disentitle a woman from maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain herself in reasonable comfort.
Background of the Case
In this case, Sunita Kachwaha, the appellant (wife), filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband, Anil Kachwaha, on the ground of desertion and neglect. She was working as a teacher and drawing a salary of around ₹3,000 per month at the time of filing.
The husband contested the maintenance claim by arguing that since his wife was employed and earning an income, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The Family Court and the High Court dismissed her petition, primarily relying on the fact that she was an earning member and thus not entitled to claim maintenance.
Aggrieved by this, Sunita Kachwaha approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Observations
The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and held that:
- The mere fact that a wife is employed and earns some income does not by itself disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. What is material is whether her earnings are sufficient to enable her to maintain herself with reasonable comfort as per the status and standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
- Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, particularly among women and children. Its interpretation should be made in consonance with constitutional values of gender justice and dignity.
- The Court noted that a paltry income of ₹3,000 was insufficient for Sunita Kachwaha to maintain herself and her minor children, given the rising cost of living and inflation. Merely being employed is not an absolute bar to claiming maintenance, especially when the income is meager.
- The husband’s earning capacity, financial status, and ability to pay maintenance must be considered in determining maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Legal Principles Established
- Employment Alone Is Not a Disqualification:
A wife’s mere employment and earning are not grounds for denying maintenance unless it is shown that she can maintain herself in reasonable comfort from her own income. - Quantum of Income Is Relevant:
The sufficiency of the wife’s income in meeting her needs must be the deciding factor, not the mere fact of her employment. - Social Justice Orientation:
Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted as a welfare provision, aligned with the constitutional commitment to gender equality and human dignity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunita Kachwaha vs Anil Kachwaha (2014) is a progressive and socially conscious decision reaffirming that maintenance is a protective provision, not a punitive one. It ensures that no woman is forced to live in destitution or denied sustenance simply because she earns a meager income.
This judgment serves as an important precedent ensuring a balanced, fair, and realistic application of maintenance laws in India.
Citation:
For a detailed understanding, you can refer to the full judgment here: Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs Anil Kachwaha
Important: Kindly Refer New Corresponding Sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, (BNSS); & Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, (BSA) for IPC; CrPC & IEA used in the article.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Adcocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304