Calcutta HC: A Working Ex-Wife Also Has Right To Maintenance
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2025-09-17 11:54:51
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
In what should be recognised as a landmark decision, the Calcutta High Court has made crystal clear: a woman cannot be denied maintenance just because she earns. This ruling does more than tweak legal technicalities - it strikes at a deeply rooted prejudice, and reaffirms that fairness and dignity in marriage and separation do not evaporate when a wife becomes financially active.
The case in question involved a wife earning a modest Rs 12,000 a month, while the husband claimed he was unemployed. The Family Court had denied her claim to maintenance because it said that since she was earning, she was capable of supporting herself. The High Court set that right. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee made it plain that a small income does not cancel out the right to live with dignity, and that a husband who is able-bodied cannot escape responsibility by pleading joblessness. The law is meant not only to prevent destitution, but also to ensure a woman does not fall from the standard of living she was entitled to during marriage. That is a crucial distinction.
Because real life is not as simple as the arguments men trot out when they want to dodge responsibility. Earning twelve thousand in a city like Kolkata is survival money at best. Forget about comfort, it barely covers the basics. A token income like that does not amount to independence. Yet time and again, courts have seen husbands try to twist the law into an escape hatch: "She's earning, so why should I pay?" The High Court's answer is refreshingly blunt - because marriage is not a contract of bare survival, it is a partnership that carries obligations even when the relationship breaks down.
What makes this judgment powerful is that it calls out the games people play. A husband declaring himself unemployed is not the end of the story. If he is able-bodied, the presumption is that he can work. He does not get to sit back, fold his arms, and let his wife carry the load. To allow that would be to reward indolence and punish effort. Ironically, the very women who try to rebuild their lives by working are the ones men target by saying, "you don't need support anymore." Itâs a trap that penalises initiative.
And let's be clear - maintenance is not charity. It is not a gift. It is recognition that years of marriage come with shared responsibilities, shared lifestyles, and shared sacrifices. Many women who work still shoulder unpaid domestic labour, which eats into their time, their health, their opportunities. The idea that they can be left to fend for themselves once they pick up a job is not just unfair, it is cruel.
The court's ruling also helps shift the conversation away from survival toward dignity. Living with dignity is not about scraping by - it is about being able to maintain a standard of life that is reasonably close to what existed during the marriage. That is what the law envisions, and that is what society owes women who are too often dismissed as "already independent" the moment they bring home a paycheck.
This decision is a reassurance to women: your right to maintenance is not erased just because you are trying to stand on your own feet. If anything, it is proof that the law respects effort but refuses to let effort be exploited. The judgment has affirmed a basic truth: earning does not erase entitlement, and dignity cannot be reduced to an income statement. That is justice not just in law, but in spirit.
