The Delhi High Court has ruled that well-educated wives with the ability to work should not remain idle solely to claim maintenance from their husbands. The court made this observation while hearing a revision petition from a woman who challenged a family court order from November 2022 that dismissed her claim for interim maintenance from her estranged husband.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in an order dated March 19, held, “This court is of the view that qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should [not] set up a claim for interim maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC aims to maintain equality among spouses, providing protection to wives, children, and parents, but it does not promote idleness. A well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable and gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.”
The High Court refused to intervene with the family court’s decision, emphasizing that the woman, who is already well-educated and aware of worldly affairs, should actively seek employment and work toward self-sufficiency. The court stated, “Unlike other women who are not educated and fully dependent on their spouses for basic sustenance, the petitioner is capable of supporting herself, and it is difficult to understand why, despite being able-bodied and well-qualified, she has chosen to remain idle since her return to India.”
The woman, who married in December 2019, moved to Singapore with her husband shortly after the wedding. Her claim was that she worked between 2005 and 2007 in Dubai but was not employed thereafter, including at the time of her marriage.
However, Justice Singh’s order noted, “This court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner is a well-qualified and able-bodied person. The fact that she has been staying with her parents and later with her maternal uncle suggests an attempt to convince the court of her inability to earn. The petitioner possesses a Master’s degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, which speaks volumes about her capacity to earn and maintain herself.”
The court also referenced WhatsApp chats that were brought up in the family court, where the woman’s mother suggested that employment would jeopardize her alimony claims. The HC interpreted this as a deliberate attempt to remain unemployed in order to secure maintenance.
Furthermore, the High Court took into account evidence presented before the family court, revealing that the woman had worked as an Audit Associate at KPMG Dubai and later as a Human Resources Manager in her father’s business. Additionally, she had an entrepreneurial venture importing semi-precious jewelry.
The court’s ruling highlights that, in cases involving educated women with the ability to earn, the legislative intent behind maintenance laws is to promote independence, not to encourage dependency.