In Mrs. Laxmi v. Mr. Chakrapan, Borivali Court denied maintenance to wife observing that she is a qualified dentist and capable of earning her own livelihood. The court held that a well-educated and employable woman cannot remain idle and demand financial support from her husband, particularly when there is no compelling evidence that she was financially dependent on him. However, the court granted maintenance for the couple’s two minor children.

The applicant, Mrs. Laxmi Bhati, had filed a case u/s 12 of DV Act, seeking interim relief, including a protection order, maintenance for herself and 2 children, and financial assistance for housing and other expenses. She alleged that her husband, Mr. Chakrapani Bhati, and his mother subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home.

Husband denied all allegations and claimed that wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home without informing him or his family. He further argued that the wife was pressuring him to relocate to Mumbai, whereas his family resided in Ajmer, Rajasthan. He had even filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Ajmer, to continue the marriage.

Court considered financial affidavits from both parties, submitted in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha. Mrs. Laxmi claimed that she needed ₹1,10,800 p.m., including ₹40,000 for rent, and estimated her husband’s monthly earnings at ₹2 lakh. Mr. Chakrapani, however, asserted that he earned only ₹30,000 to ₹35,000 p.m.

Court observed "She is a qualified doctor residing in a metropolitan city like Mumbai. She is expected to practice her profession and can easily secure employment as a dentist."

Court also noted "Presently, she has been residing with her parents, which means she is in a house where she has every right to reside. The law treats daughters and sons equally concerning property rights in their parental home. Therefore, she is not entitled to an additional residence order."

While rejecting maintenance for the wife, court recognized the financial needs of the children, who were in the custody of the applicant. Consequently, the court directed him to pay ₹10,000 p.m. for each child, effective from the date of filing of the application.