Can a Husband Refuse Support if the Wife Has a Job?

A common question in matrimonial law is whether a working wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband. Can a husband legally refuse to pay maintenance simply because the wife earns a salary? The Bombay High Court recently addressed this issue in Shachindra Kamala Prasad Shukla v. Priya Shachindra Shukla (2025), reaffirming a vital principle—employment alone does not disentitle a woman from seeking financial support to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

Factual Background

The petitioner-husband, Shachindra Shukla, and the respondent-wife, Priya Shukla, were married in 2012. In 2019, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In 2021, the wife filed an interim application seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Act.

The Family Court at Bandra granted interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month to the wife, despite the husband’s objection that she was employed and earning ₹21,820/month, with additional income from tuition and fixed deposits.

Aggrieved, the husband filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the interim maintenance order.

Issue

• Can a husband be compelled to pay maintenance to his wife even if she is employed and earning?

Petitioner’s Arguments: Why the Husband Refused Maintenance

The husband raised several points to contest the maintenance order:

Wife's Employment: He claimed the wife was earning ₹21,820 per month as an assistant teacher and had additional income from tuition classes and fixed deposits, aggregating to about ₹40,000 monthly.

Personal Financial Burden: He asserted his in-hand salary was ₹57,935, with monthly expenses totalling ₹54,000, including care for his elderly parents.

Inability to Pay: Based on these financial disclosures, the husband claimed that he lacked sufficient disposable income to pay ₹15,000 monthly to his wife.

Respondent’s Rebuttal: Wife’s Stand on Maintenance

The wife responded with counterarguments, highlighting:

Suppression of Facts: She presented salary slips of the husband showing monthly earnings exceeding ₹1 lakh, disproving his claim of financial strain.

Insufficient Income: Her net salary was ₹19,820, mostly spent on commuting and basic sustenance, leaving little for rent or independent living.

Standard of Living: She had to live with her parents and brother due to her limited income, which was not sustainable long-term.

Broader Legal Context

• Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: It enables either spouse to claim maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The only test is whether the applicant has no sufficient independent income to support themselves.
• Section 125, CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS): Even outside matrimonial proceedings, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a wife who is unable to maintain herself to claim maintenance from her husband.

Court's Findings

Justice Manjusha Deshpande of the Bombay High Court rejected the husband's writ petition and upheld the Family Court's order of maintenance. The key observations are:

True Financial Capacity Must Be Disclosed:

The Court noted that the husband had deliberately understated his income. His salary slips for various months showed net salaries of Rs. 1,51,284 and Rs. 1,17,338, contrary to his claims of drawing Rs. 57,935 net salary.

Parents Not Financially Dependent:

Although the husband claimed high expenses due to dependent parents, the Court found that his father received a pension of Rs. 28,000, thereby reducing the alleged financial burden.

Wife's Income Not Sufficient:

The wife’s modest salary did not allow her to afford independent accommodation or sustain a dignified life. She had to live with her parents and brother due to limited means. Her tuition income and interest from fixed deposits were found to be insignificant or non-permanent.

Maintenance and Standard of Living:

The Court emphasised that a wife is entitled to live with the same standard of living as she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. Maintenance should not merely provide subsistence but must reflect parity in lifestyle, especially where the husband enjoys a significantly higher income.

Legal Principles Applied

The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including:

• Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
• Pravin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2025) 2 SCC 227
• Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724)

These cases outline relevant factors for determining maintenance:

• Status and lifestyle of the parties
• Reasonable needs of the wife
• Comparative income and liabilities
• Employment sacrifices made by the wife
• Standard of living in the matrimonial home

Highlights of the Judgment

Justice Manjusha Deshpande, presiding over the matter at the Bombay High Court, opined

" In the present case though the wife is earning, the said income is not sufficient for her own maintenance since she has to travel daily a long distance for her job. She is staying with her parents which she cannot stay indefinitely. Because of her meager earning, she is constrained to stay in the house of her brother alongwith her parents causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such a income she is not in a position to live a decent life. As against, it if compared against the Petitioner's income, his income is far more than the Respondent-wife's, with no financial responsibilities on him.

Even assuming the certain expenses must be necessary for the maintenance of himself and the family members whom he is obliged to maintain, the amount that remains is sufficient enough to enable him to support the Respondent-wife as per the order passed by the Judge, Family Court at Bandra. Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived the support from her husband with the same standard of living to which she is accustomed to in her matrimonial home."

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces a woman’s right to maintenance irrespective of her employment if her earnings are insufficient. It debunks the misconception that a working woman is automatically disqualified from claiming maintenance.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court has affirmed that:

• Employment alone is not a disqualification for maintenance.
• The ability to maintain a standard of living similar to that in the matrimonial home is a crucial factor.
• The husband's true financial status and the wife’s real needs must be weighed holistically.

Thus, to answer the question: No, a husband cannot refuse support solely on the ground that the wife has a job. The determining factor is whether her income suffices to sustain her in a dignified manner aligned with her past standard of living.

This judgment is a vital precedent upholding the principles of fairness and gender justice in matrimonial disputes, reinforcing the protective spirit of Indian matrimonial law.