Maintenance can't be denied to woman because of prior employment: Bombay High Court

Previous employment of a woman will not mean that she cannot be entitled to maintenance from her estranged husband, the Bombay High Court ruled, while setting aside a family court order, which had denied relief to the woman.

Justice Rajesh Ketkar said, "In my opinion, the approach of the learned trial judge was wholly perverse. The trial judge should have considered the earning capacity of the respondent and his financial status. In the past, the respondent had paid Rs 12 lakh from time to time to the petitioner, which is disputed by the petitioner, and thus, cannot be the ground for denial of maintenance."

The woman had challenged the family court order of March 4, 2016, where based on the argument of the husband, the judge had rejected the plea for interim maintenance on the ground that in the past the petitioner (woman) was gainfully employed and thus she has the capacity to earn and that the respondent had paid Rs 12 lakh to the husband.

The bench after going through the facts noted "The judge should have considered whether presently the petitioner is gainfully employed or not. Merely, because in the past she was gainfully employed that by itself will not be sufficient to refuse maintenance." It also said that the woman has disputed the amount given and initiated proceedings for recovery.

The bench thus directed the trial court to reconsider the application and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.