The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling by Justice Garima Prashad, has clarified that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she has refused to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The court emphasized that such a refusal does not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This judgment aligns with similar observations by the Supreme Court in January 2025, which held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights alone does not bar a wife's maintenance, and the court must assess if there were valid reasons for her refusal to cohabit. Furthermore, the Allahabad High Court unequivocally stated that a wife's educational qualifications or her 'potential to earn' are not sufficient grounds to deny her statutory right to maintenance. The court differentiated between the capacity to earn and actually earning a livelihood, acknowledging that many women, despite being educated, face difficulties in joining the workforce after years of fulfilling domestic and childcare responsibilities. The bench set aside an order from a Family Court in Bulandshahr that had rejected a wife's maintenance claim, partly on the grounds that she was living separately without sufficient cause and was capable of earning. This ruling reinforces the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife and child, ensuring that women are not unfairly disadvantaged in maintenance claims due to societal realities or mere theoretical earning potential. The decision highlights the principles of social justice embedded in Section 125 CrPC and is crucial for protecting women's financial rights in India.