It is definitely a matter of huge significance with far reaching potential consequences that while ruling most sagaciously on a very pertinent issue pertaining to the payment of maintenance to highly educated wives, the Orissa High Court which is definitely one of the most esteemed High Courts in India with impeccable reputation in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Madan Kumar Satpathy vs Priyadarshini Pati in RPFAM No.417 of 2023 (An application U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984) that was pronounced finally on 07.02.2025 has minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms that highly educated wives with experience in a suitable gainful job cannot sit idle without attempting to work merely to impose the financial burden of maintenance on her husband.

It merits singular attention that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice G Satapathy who authored this most commendable, cogent, courageous and creditworthy oral judgment also deemed it fit to clarify that maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is meant for wives who are genuinely unable to support and sustain themselves and not for those who choose not to work despite having qualifications. It also certainly deserves mentioning that after perusing and having a careful scrutiny of the facts of the case and also while duly considering the husband’s financial obligations, including the responsibility of his dependent mother, the Cuttack High Court deemed it fit to reduce the maintenance amount from Rs 8000 to Rs 5000 per month. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced oral judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice G Satapathy of Orissa High Court at Cuttack sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that:
This revision by the petitioner-husband seeks to assail the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Criminal Proceeding No. 05 of 2014 directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the OP-wife for her maintenance in an application U/S.125 of the CrPC.

As we see, the Bench then observes briefly in para 2 of this robust judgment that:
Heard, Mr. Anam Charan Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and Mr. Ramesh Chandra Ojha, learned counsel for the OP-wife in the matter and perused the record.

To put things in perspective, we see that the Bench then while persuasively elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 of this remarkable oral judgment pointing out that:
On a careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment together with the material placed on record, it appears to the Court that the relationship between the parties is never disputed and it is accepted that the petitioner is the husband of OP, but due to dissension, the OP has filed an application for grant of maintenance to her to be paid by the petitioner-husband. In deciding the matter, the learned trial Court has assessed the income of the petitioner-husband by taking into account his admitted net home take salary at Rs.32,541/- per month, out of the gross salary of Rs. 45,362/-.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-husband has a dependent mother. It is found from the impugned judgment that the OP-wife has filed a disclosure affidavit showing her assets and liabilities in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324 and in such disclosure affidavit, the OP-wife has described herself as jobless, but she in her cross-examination at paragraph-25 has admitted that she was working in Grihasthi Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela in an occasion, and she had stated in an interview that previously she was working in NDTV. It cannot and should not be denied that the OP-wife is a Science Graduate having Post Graduation Diploma in Journalism and Mass Communication and the learned trial Court after taking note of these facts has also concluded that the OP-wife is a well-educated lady and can support herself financially by doing a suitable job, but at present the OP-wife is not working anywhere to earn her livelihood. The aforesaid facts go to show that not only OP-wife is a well-educated lady, but also she was previously working in some media houses, however, she has definite prospect to work and earn for her sustenance.

Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, what must certainly capture maximum eyeballs and so also maximum singular attention and what also truly constitutes the actual cornerstone and the real heartbeat of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 4 postulating most forcefully stating unambiguously leaving not even an iota of doubt while making its position crystal clear that:
Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification. It is found in this case that the OP-wife had earlier worked in some media houses and she has got definite prospect to work and earn her livelihood. The intention and objective of legislature in enacting Section 125 of CrPC is to provide succor to those wives, who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance. The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose the wife’s need and requirement to be balanced not only with the income and liability of the husband, but also has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn.

No less significant is what is then propounded in para 5 of this rational judgment holding and directing most precisely that:
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the admitted income of the petitioner-husband and balancing it with the requirement of the petitioner-husband together with his dependent mother and taking into consideration the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife, who in this case at the time of filing of application for grant of maintenance was jobless, but she having definite prospect to work and earn her livelihood, this Court considers that interest of justice would be best served, if the quantum of maintenance is reduced by Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner-husband is liable to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the OP-wife w.e.f the date of application and the balance arrear amount be accordingly calculated and paid to the OP-wife in cash in four bi-monthly installments with 1st installment commencing from 7th March, 2025.

Finally, we see that the Bench then deems it fit to draw the curtains of this concise oral judgment in para 6 by holding succinctly that:
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. Ergo, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.

In a nutshell, this most noteworthy oral judgment delivered so brilliantly by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice G Satapathy of Orissa High Court at Cuttack has sent a very loud and clear message to all women who are highly educated with experience in a suitable gainful job having high and proper qualifications in the fitness of things that they cannot remain idle any longer just to claim maintenance because they are not uneducated for whom there is no room for job. There can be just no gainsaying that not only all the district courts but also all the High Courts and even the Supreme Court must definitely rule similarly in similar such leading cases where women are highly educated with experience in a suitable gainful job also as we see in this leading case! No denying or disputing it!

It is a no-brainer that doing so will definitely go a long way in ensuring not only a woman’s all-round personality development but even more importantly will also ensure that she remains financially independent which is beyond a straw of doubt so very vital not only for her ownself but so also for her children also because if a husband dies early, it will ensure that she does not come to streets and so also ostensibly ensure that she does not suffer from any kind of financial distress and is quite capable of earning her own livelihood and thus is able to sustain not only just her ownself but so also her own children without being rendered helpless in any manner! There can be just no quibbling on it and so I just fail to comprehend that why this most pragmatic and progressive judgment should not be welcomed in its entirety not only by men but even by women herself! I have just no hesitation whatsoever of any kind in saying most frankly from the core of my heart that India definitely needs such straightforward progressive Judges who can rule so brilliantly on such a core issue with consummate ease!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh