Telangana High Court: Wife's Enrolment As Advocate Not Proof Of Income To Deny Maintenance Claim

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Telangana High Court has held that a wife's enrolment as an advocate and her independent legal practice cannot, by themselves, establish that she earns enough to support herself and therefore should be denied maintenance.

According to a LiveLaw report, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy made the observation while allowing a wife's review petition against an earlier High Court order that had set aside the ₹20,000 monthly interim maintenance awarded to her by the Family Court.

The Court said the key question under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is whether a spouse actually has sufficient independent income for their support and litigation expenses. Professional qualifications or the ability to earn cannot be treated as proof of sufficient income.

Also Read | Ladakh gets J&K High Court bench, announces Amit Shah Case dates back to 2010

The matrimonial dispute has been pending before the I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, since 2010.

In 2013, the Family Court awarded the wife interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month. It also ordered the husband to pay ₹15,000 each per month for the couple's two daughters.

The husband challenged the order before the High Court. In October 2024, the High Court partly allowed his revision petition, setting aside the maintenance awarded to the wife while retaining the payments for the daughters until they attained majority.

Also Read | Delhi on red alert, sees change in weather as heavy rain pounds capital

The wife subsequently approached the High Court seeking a review of that decision.

She argued that she had never been employed and was instead working as an advocate in independent practice. Her professional receipts, she submitted, were neither fixed nor regular, and there was no evidence before the court establishing her actual income.

'Enrolment at the Bar establishes a qualification'

The High Court drew a distinction between salaried employment and independent professional practice, noting that income from legal practice may vary depending on the briefs received and the expenses involved.

“The difference between employment and independent practice is not merely one of name. A person in employment draws a salary which is fixed, regular and capable of proof by a single document. The receipts of an advocate in independent practice are none of these: they are irregular, they vary from year to year, they depend on the briefs that come, and they are subject to the expenses of running a practice. Enrolment at the Bar establishes a qualification and a right to appear. It establishes nothing about income, and still less about income sufficient for the applicant's support under Section 24,” the Court observed, as reported by LiveLaw.

The Court said Section 24 requires an examination of the income actually available to the spouse.

Also Read | Who is Justice Sanjay Karol? Retired SC judge who said 'Judges not gods...'

“The statutory test is therefore the sufficiency of the income actually available, and not the capacity to earn,” it said, adding that the provision does not refer to“educational qualification, professional standing or earning potential.”

Court refers to Supreme Court rulings

The High Court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, Shailja v. Khobbanna and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain.

Based on these rulings, the Court said the fact that a spouse earns some money, or has the capacity to earn, does not automatically disentitle them from seeking maintenance.

Instead, the court must determine whether the income actually available is sufficient for the spouse's support, taking into account the parties' status and standard of living in the matrimonial home.

The High Court found that describing the wife as“earning” in the earlier order was not supported by a specific finding based on evidence of her income. Instead, it appeared to have been inferred from her professional status.

Earlier order did not examine actual income

The Court clarified that it was not itself deciding whether the wife had sufficient income to support herself. The issue was that the earlier order had treated her professional status as a substitute for the factual inquiry required under Section 24.

It noted that the earlier order did not record findings on the income the wife actually received from her practice, whether that income was sufficient for her support, or the husband's income and financial means.

The Court also said the earlier decision had not considered the binding framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha for determining maintenance.

It further held that the earlier order had exceeded the permissible limits of revisional jurisdiction by re-assessing the wife's earning capacity without identifying any perversity or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's findings.

₹20,000 maintenance restored

The High Court also found that the earlier decision had restricted the daughters' maintenance until they attained majority without adequate reasons, despite the husband's undertaking to pay the full maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

The Court therefore allowed the wife's review petition, recalled its October 2024 order and dismissed the husband's civil revision petition.

The Family Court's 2013 interim maintenance order was restored in its original terms and will remain in effect until the matrimonial proceedings are disposed of.

The husband was also directed to submit details of the maintenance payable, amounts already paid and the admitted balance, along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in the format prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha.

Any arrears determined after the exercise were directed to be paid within eight weeks, LiveLaw reported.

MENAFN24082026007365015876ID1111580632