The Supreme Court of India has refused to grant maintenance to a woman who is employed in the same position as her estranged husband. The court emphasized that since she is financially independent and capable of supporting herself, there is no justification for awarding her maintenance.

Courts Decision on Maintenance

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the womans plea, stating that no interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution. The woman, who works as an Assistant Professor, sought financial support from her estranged husband, but the court ruled against her request.

The judges noted that both spouses were holding the same designation and rejected her appeal. The order stated, “Both the first petitioner and respondent (husband and wife) are holding the same post of an Assistant Professor. No case for interference is made out in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.”

Husbands Argument Against Maintenance

The woman’s plea for maintenance was strongly opposed by her husband. His legal representative, Advocate Shashank Singh, argued that she was financially stable, earning approximately 60,000 per month and that both of them were drawing salaries from the same pay grade. Singh contended that in such a scenario, it would be unfair to burden the husband with a maintenance obligation, as his wife was capable of supporting herself.

Wife’s Justification for Seeking Maintenance

Despite being employed, the wife asserted that her income should not automatically exempt her husband from his responsibility to provide maintenance. She pointed out that her husband earned around 1,00,000 per month, significantly more than her own earnings. She argued that maintenance laws were meant to ensure financial fairness in cases of marital separation and that her husband’s higher income should be considered.

Since there was a dispute over the exact salaries of both parties, the Supreme Court directed them to submit salary slips for the last year before making a final decision. However, after reviewing the details, the court concluded that the woman was not entitled to maintenance, as she was earning a stable income.

Previous Rejections by Lower Courts

The wife had initially approached a trial court seeking maintenance, but her request was denied. She then appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which also ruled against her. Dissatisfied with the verdicts of the lower courts, she approached the Supreme Court in the hope of obtaining relief. However, the apex court upheld the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed her plea, reinforcing the stance that maintenance is not an automatic right when both spouses are financially independent.

This ruling sets a significant precedent, emphasizing that maintenance cannot be claimed as a default right when the spouse seeking it has a steady income and holds an equivalent professional position to the other party. The judgment highlights the courts focus on financial independence and self-sufficiency in cases of marital separation.