Qualifications are not income. In X v. Y (2026:BHC-NAG:5952), the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench held that a wife cannot be refused maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) only because she holds postgraduate degrees, without evidence that she is actually earning or able to support herself. It also held that her failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disentitle her: the husband must show a genuine offer to live together.
In Pune, where many couples are engineers, MBAs and IT professionals, this argument appears in almost every maintenance case. The husband points to the wife’s degree; the wife points to the years she spent out of work. This judgment tells Family Courts how to weigh it.
What the Court held
- Educational qualifications alone do not disentitle a wife from maintenance. There must be evidence that she is earning, or is capable of maintaining herself.
- Non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not enough on its own to reject her claim.
- Refusal of maintenance on the ground that the wife refuses to live with the husband requires a genuine offer of cohabitation by him.
- The Court partly allowed the wife’s revision and directed ₹10,000 a month for her and ₹5,000 a month for the daughter.
Earning versus able to earn
Courts distinguish between a wife who is actually earning and one who merely could earn. Courts have also said that a qualified wife who is able to work should not stay idle only to claim maintenance, and earning capacity can be considered when fixing the amount. But capacity must be shown on facts — a recent job, an offer refused, an ongoing business — not inferred from a degree certificate. A long career break, small children at home, or a move to a new city all bear on whether a capacity is real.
| Husband’s argument | How it is assessed |
|---|---|
| She is a postgraduate | Not enough by itself — evidence of earning or real earning capacity needed |
| She refused to return after a restitution decree | Not an automatic bar — was there a genuine offer to live together? |
| She advertised classes or freelance work | Bombay High Court has held a single advertisement too thin to prove an income |
| She is actually employed and self-sufficient | A genuine defence to the wife’s own claim; children’s maintenance continues separately |
For wives filing in Pune
- Explain your employment history honestly: when you last worked, why you stopped, and what it would realistically take to return.
- Show your current expenses and those of the children.
- If a restitution decree was passed against you, record why you did not return and whether any genuine offer was made.
For husbands responding
- If you say she is earning, produce evidence of it — salary records, business accounts, social media promoting a paid service, tax filings.
- If you rely on her refusal to cohabit, show a real, documented offer, not a notice sent purely for litigation.
- Keep children’s maintenance separate in your mind; it does not depend on the wife’s conduct.
The bottom line
A degree is not a salary. Maintenance turns on actual means and genuine conduct, proved by documents, and the Family Court at Shivajinagar will look for evidence, not assumptions, on both sides.