One of the most common arguments raised by husbands in matrimonial litigation across India is: “She is well-qualified. She is capable of earning. Why should I pay her maintenance?”
It is a persuasive-sounding line — but it isn’t how Indian law actually works. The Supreme Court of India has, in a long and fairly consistent line of judgments, held that qualification, employability, or even a modest income of the wife does not by itself extinguish her right to maintenance. The real test the courts apply is not “can she theoretically earn?” but “is she, in fact, able to maintain herself in a manner reasonably comparable to what she enjoyed in the matrimonial home?”
This piece walks through the legal principle and the key Supreme Court decisions that shape it — while also being honest about the limits courts have placed on this right.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A wife’s claim to maintenance in India can arise under several laws, and often more than one simultaneously:
- Section 125 of the CrPC* (now Section 144 of the BNSS) — a summary, secular remedy meant to prevent destitution.
- The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
- Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Interim and Permanent alimony.
- Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
“UNABLE TO MAINTAIN HERSELF” DOES NOT MEAN DESTITUTE
The Supreme Court’s clearest word on this came in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316. The Court held that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” under Section 125 CrPC does not require a wife to be absolutely penniless before she can claim support. Even where she earns some income, if that income is insufficient to let her live at a standard reasonably close to what she had in her husband’s household, she remains entitled to maintenance. The Court also underlined that Section 125 falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and Article 39, framing maintenance as a tool of social justice rather than a technical contractual entitlement.
This single principle — that “some income” is not the same as “sufficient income” — runs through nearly every later judgment on the point.
A MODEST SALARY DOES NOT DISQUALIFY HER
In *Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), the Supreme Court went a step further and held that the mere fact that a wife has some earnings cannot, by itself, disentitle her from her right to maintenance. Courts must look at whether those earnings actually allow her to sustain the lifestyle she was accustomed to — not simply record that she has a job and stop the inquiry there. This reasoning has since been relied upon by several High Courts, including the Bombay High Court in *Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale (2020), which held that neither a wife’s earning potential nor her meagre earnings should defeat her claim.
QUALIFICATION ALONE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL INCOME
A related but distinct question is what happens when a wife is highly qualified but not currently working. Here too, the Supreme Court in Shailja v. Khobbanna (2017) made clear that being qualified to earn does not amount to being disqualified from claiming maintenance. In a related line of reasoning, the Court has cautioned that courts cannot simply presume a qualified woman is earning without evidence — the burden lies on the husband to actually demonstrate what she earns or is capable of earning, not merely assert that her degree makes her self-sufficient.
EDUCATION RECEIVED FROM PARENTS DOESN’T LET THE HUSBAND OFF THE HOOK EITHER
In a 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated this position while enhancing a wife’s permanent alimony, holding that a husband cannot escape his legal duty to maintain his former wife merely because she is educated or because she receives some support from her parents. The Court rejected the husband’s argument that the wife’s qualifications and parental backing should reduce or eliminate his obligation, and upheld a substantial monthly alimony despite his claims of financial strain from a failed second marriage.
The Supreme Court’s position, read as a whole, is nuanced rather than absolute:
- Being qualified is not the same as being self-sufficient.* Courts require actual proof of sufficient income, not assumptions based on a degree or resume.
- Some income does not mean adequate income.* A wife earning enough to survive, but not enough to live at a standard comparable to her matrimonial home, can still claim maintenance.
- The burden of proving the wife’s actual capacity or income rests on the husband*, not the other way around.