Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
In Rajnesh (supra), the Supreme Court has
held that the husband cannot take up a contention that he is
unemployed or has no source of income and thus cannot
maintain his wife and children, so long as he is found to be
an able-bodied person.
Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 October, 2014
In Sunita Kachwaha and Others v. Anil
Kachwaha[(2014) 16 SCC 715], the husband raised a
contention that since the wife was employed as a teacher
and had sufficient income, she was not entitled to
maintenance from her husband. The Supreme Court repelled
the contention and held that merely because the wife was
earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her
claim for maintenance.
Shailja vs Khobbanna on 18 January, 2017
The difference between 'capable of
earning' and 'actual earning' has been highlighted clearly by
the Supreme Court in Shailja and Another v. Khobbanna
[(2018) 12 SCC 199], wherein the Supreme Court decided
2025:KER:86193
RPFC NOS.476 & 409 OF 2017
7
that a wife who was capable of earning could not be barred
from claiming maintenance.
Jayaprakash E.P vs Sheney P on 17 January, 2023
Thus, the law is well settled that
even if a wife has the capability to earn or is earning
something, it does not disentitle her from claiming
maintenance from her husband (Jayaprakash E.P. v.
Sheney P. [2025 (1) KLT 815]).
1