Two defences dominate contested maintenance proceedings: she is qualified, so she can earn; and she refused to return, so she forfeited the claim. The Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench addressed both in a judgment pronounced on 17 April 2026 and reported this October, upholding maintenance to a postgraduate wife and her minor daughter. The Court's twin holdings — that a degree is not the same thing as an income, and that an unexecuted restitution decree disqualifies only on proof of genuine refusal — restate the law that Delhi courts apply under Section 125 CrPC, now Section 144 of the BNSS.
The proceedings
The husband's revision challenged a common judgment dated 16 February 2024 of Family Court No. 1, Nagpur, awarding maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to the wife, aged 37, and the minor daughter. The marriage had broken down years earlier; the husband held a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and the parties had already litigated one round of maintenance in an earlier petition. Before the High Court, the husband pressed the two defences that fail more often than they succeed: the wife's postgraduate education, and her non-return despite the restitution decree.
Education is capacity, not income
On the first defence, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke's reasoning is direct: the wife holds a postgraduate degree, but she has no job and there is no evidence of earnings. The judgment records that merely because she is an educated lady is not sufficient to hold that she is an able-bodied earning person, and that although educated, she has no job and is therefore unable to maintain herself. The distinction matters because Section 125 is a measure of social justice directed at present destitution, not a referendum on employability. A husband who wants the court to attribute income to a qualified wife must prove actual earnings or a real, available opportunity she has unreasonably spurned — a bare certificate proves neither.
| Defence raised | What the Court required |
|---|---|
| "She is a postgraduate; she can earn" | Proof of actual employment or earnings — education alone is not income |
| "She disobeyed the restitution decree" | Proof of refusal to live with the husband without sufficient reason, not mere failure |
| "Maintenance punishes me for the past" | Rejected: the object of Section 125 is sustenance, not punishment for past neglect |
Refusal versus failure: the Section 125(4) line
The restitution decree defence received the more doctrinally interesting treatment. Section 125(4) CrPC withholds maintenance from a wife who, without sufficient reason, refuses to live with her husband. The husband's syllogism — decree, non-compliance, therefore disqualification — collapsed at the second step. The Court held that the mere existence of a restitution decree and its non-compliance would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification: what is relevant under Section 125(4) is a refusal to live with the husband, not a mere failure to live with him. On the record, the wife had offered to rejoin the matrimonial home and the husband had not accepted the offer. The refusal, in other words, was his — and with it went the defence. The judgment also echoes the settled principle that maintenance proceedings do not exist to punish past neglect but to prevent present vagrancy and destitution.
Decree obtained
Husband secures a restitution of conjugal rights decree.
The real question
Did the wife refuse cohabitation without sufficient reason — or merely fail to resume it?
Offer and response
Her offer to rejoin, unaccepted by the husband, negates refusal on her part.
Result
Section 125(4) disqualification not attracted; maintenance sustained.
The operative order
The revision was partly allowed on quantum and periodisation. The husband was directed to pay the wife Rs. 10,000 per month and the daughter Rs. 5,000 per month from 9 October 2017 until December 2020, and Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 7,000 per month respectively thereafter — these amounts being in addition to maintenance already granted in the parties' earlier petition — along with costs, including Rs. 10,000 for the revision itself.
Delhi practice note: in maintenance litigation in Delhi, the affidavit-of-assets regime under Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 requires both spouses to disclose income, assets and liabilities on oath at the outset. A husband asserting that a qualified wife can earn, or that she refused to return, must make that case through those disclosures and cross-examination — assertions in argument, this judgment confirms, are not evidence.
The decision changes no statute but recalibrates expectations. For claimant wives, qualifications on paper do not shut the door; for respondent husbands, a restitution decree is the beginning of a Section 125(4) argument, not its end. Both propositions travel unchanged into Section 144 BNSS proceedings before Delhi's Family Courts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can maintenance be denied because the wife is well educated?
Not on education alone. The Court held that the wife's postgraduate qualification did not make her an able-bodied earner in fact: she had no job and there was no evidence of actual earnings. The test under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) is whether the claimant is unable to maintain herself — capacity in the abstract is weighed, but an unproven earning potential does not defeat the claim.
Does a restitution of conjugal rights decree bar the wife's maintenance?
Not automatically. Section 125(4) disqualifies a wife who refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason. The Court held that a restitution decree and its non-compliance are relevant but not decisive: what matters is a refusal to live with the husband, not a mere failure. Where the wife offered to rejoin and the husband did not accept, the disqualification was not attracted — the neglect was his.
From when was the maintenance payable in this case?
The operative order ran from 9 October 2017: Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000 to the daughter up to December 2020, enhanced to Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 7,000 thereafter — in addition to amounts already granted in earlier proceedings between the parties, with costs.
Is the position the same under the BNSS?
Yes. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reproduces the Section 125 CrPC scheme, including the disqualifications in sub-section (4). Precedent on refusal versus failure, and on educated but non-earning claimants, continues to govern.