Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal
Citation: 2000 Cri LJ 1396 (M.P. High Court)

🧾 Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, Mrs. Mamta Jaiswal, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from her husband, Mr. Rajesh Jaiswal.

She alleged that her husband neglected and refused to maintain her.

The husband resisted the claim, arguing that:

The wife was highly educated — holding M.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees.

She was capable of earning her livelihood.

Therefore, she could not claim maintenance merely by sitting idle.

⚖️ Legal Issue:

Whether a well-qualified wife, who is capable of maintaining herself but chooses not to work, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

The provision is intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, ensuring that those who cannot support themselves are not left without assistance.

It is not a provision to enrich idle spouses who are capable of earning.

Duty of a capable person:

“A lady who is well qualified and capable of earning cannot claim maintenance from her husband by sitting idle and wasting her educational qualifications.”

The Court noted that in the present era, women are equal to men in all respects, and it is not proper for an able-bodied and qualified woman to remain unemployed deliberately just to claim maintenance.

Maintenance is meant for those who are truly dependent, not for those who voluntarily remain dependent.

The wife’s claim for maintenance was rejected.

The Court held that since she was well educated and capable of earning, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

⚖️ Legal Principle Established:

“A well-qualified spouse who is capable of earning cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because she does not choose to work. Maintenance is a protection against destitution, not a substitute for employment.”

🔍 Significance of the Judgment:

Balanced interpretation of Section 125 CrPC: The decision safeguards against misuse of the maintenance provision by educated or professionally qualified spouses who refuse to work. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal.

Promotes self-reliance: It aligns with modern principles of gender equality and economic independence.

Frequently cited precedent: This case is often cited by husbands in defense when the wife is qualified, employable, or already earning, to contest maintenance claims. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It provides a general understanding of legal remedies but does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, you can consult a legal expert.