PRAYAGRAJ, Jan. 13 -- The Allahabad high court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) merely because she is highly qualified or possesses vocational skills, as this cannot lead to the conclusion that she (wife) is working for gain. Justice Garima Prashad also observed that it is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. The court added that the wife's mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment. The court emphasised that this is a reality faced by many women, who, despite their education, find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties and childcare responsibilities. With these observations, the court set aside an order of the additional principal judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, rejecting the wife's application moved under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the husband. The family court had rejected the wife's plea for maintenance on the grounds that she had concealed her professional education from the court and had not approached the court with clean hands. The family court had, however, directed that an amount of Rs. 3,000 per month be paid to the second revisionist - minor son - from the date of filing of the petition. The court further observed that the statutory right of the wife to get maintenance from her husband cannot be infringed by setting up a case that she had the capacity to earn. It added that the fact that the wife could work or could earn some money is not the end of the matter, and neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning, however meagre it may be, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. "The first revisionist - wife could have the capacity to earn from tailoring, which may not be sufficient to support the livelihood of the wife and afford her to maintain the same standard of living which she will get if she was residing with the husband. Thus, the wife is entitled to maintenance from the husband even if the revisionist has the capacity to work," the court remarked. In an observation regarding the challenges women face, the court further stated: "It is a matter of social reality that women devote themselves to domestic responsibilities and take care of children and are unable to be gainfully employed." "Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face," the court said. The court also acknowledged that an unemployed wife's situation, who has to single-handedly care for her young child, reflects the "reality faced by many women, who, despite their education, find it difficult to join the workforce after years of domestic duties". The high court, in its decision, dated January 5, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Family Court, Bulandshahr, for passing a fresh, reasoned order within one month....