The Delhi High Court has held that a well-educated wife with relevant work experience should not remain unemployed merely to seek maintenance from her husband.
“….this Court is of the considered view that a well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.
The Court rejected a wife’s petition contesting a family court’s refusal to grant her interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in a matrimonial dispute.
The couple married in 2019 and later relocated to Singapore. The petitioner claimed she returned to India in February 2021, alleging cruelty by her husband and in-laws. She also alleged that her husband revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded in Singapore.
She further claimed that her husband withheld her valuables, forcing her to sell all her jewelry to fund her return to India. Struggling financially, she moved in with her maternal uncle.
She stated that she completed her master’s degree in 2006 and worked in Dubai from 2005 to 2007 but had not been employed or earning since then.
It was also contended that the family court overlooked the significant gap between her graduation, last employment, and marriage, highlighting that she had deliberately chosen to remain unemployed.
Conversely, the husband opposed her petition, asserting that she was highly educated and capable of earning, and therefore, could not seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC merely on the grounds of unemployment.
He further argued that the wife’s demand for ₹3,25,000 per month in maintenance was unreasonable and disproportionate to her previous standard of living in India. He also claimed that she had exaggerated his financial status while downplaying her own earning potential.
The Court noted that the wife was undeniably well-qualified and capable of earning. It also observed that her choice to first live with her parents and later with her maternal uncle seemed to be an effort to portray herself as financially dependent and unable to support herself.
Concluding that the case did not justify granting interim maintenance to the wife, the Court remarked:
“With respect to the prima facie evidence of intentional unemployment, the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and her mother—whose authenticity can be assessed during the trial—is particularly significant. In this exchange, the mother advises that taking up employment could affect alimony claims. Notably, this conversation took place before the maintenance petition was filed, strongly indicating a deliberate effort to remain unemployed to seek maintenance.”
“Taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should now set up a claim for interim maintenance,” the Court said.
The Court also observed that the wife’s qualifications and prior work experience indicated no justifiable reason preventing her from becoming financially independent in the future.
Additionally, the Court encouraged the petitioner to actively seek employment and achieve self-sufficiency, highlighting that, unlike women who lack education and are entirely dependent on their spouses for survival, she has substantial exposure and awareness of worldly affairs.
