Pune: Wife More Educated Than Husband, Court Denies Maintenance; Orders 50% Share in Expenses

By Lokmat Times Desk | Updated: April 8, 2026 19:06 IST2026-04-08T19:06:53+5:302026-04-08T19:06:53+5:30

The wife is more educated than her husband. Therefore, the court has denied her claim for maintenance and instead ...

Pune: Wife More Educated Than Husband, Court Denies Maintenance; Orders 50% Share in Expenses | Pune: Wife More Educated Than Husband, Court Denies Maintenance; Orders 50% Share in Expenses

Pune: Wife More Educated Than Husband, Court Denies Maintenance; Orders 50% Share in Expenses

The wife is more educated than her husband. Therefore, the court has denied her claim for maintenance and instead ordered that she must bear half of both children’s educational expenses, as well as half of the household expenses (upon submission of bills). This order was passed by Family Court Chief Judge Shyam Rukme. As per the ruling, it means that the wife will have to shoulder 50% of the expenses. Advocate Arjun Vhajge represented the husband in the case.

Smita and Rakesh (names changed) were married on November 17, 2003, and continue to live in the same house. They have two children—a 17-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter. The wife has filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and had also sought maintenance. She holds an M.A. and B.Ed. degree and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. Although she has no source of income, she claims her monthly expenses amount to ₹65,000. The husband, who holds a diploma, earns ₹90,000 per month.

The wife had demanded financial support for her daily living and the children’s education. However, the husband, through his lawyer, opposed this claim, arguing that the wife does not contribute to the children’s expenses and is more qualified than him. He also stated that she had worked as an assistant professor after marriage and has completed several courses during their 22-year marriage, which was possible with his support. Based on this argument, the court accepted that although the wife currently has no income, she is capable of working. Consequently, the court denied her maintenance and issued the above order.

Open in app