
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a well-educated wife, capable of earning, should not remain idle solely to seek maintenance from her husband, emphasizing that the law intends to provide protection, not “promote idleness.”
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in an order on Wednesday, stated that Section 125 of the CrPC, which deals with maintenance for wives, children, and parents, is aimed at ensuring equality among spouses rather than fostering financial dependence. “Section 125 carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses, provide protection to the wives, children, and parents, and not promote idleness,” the court stated.
The court made these observations while dismissing a woman’s plea challenging a trial court’s decision that denied her interim maintenance from her estranged husband. Instead, the court urged her to seek employment, stating that she had “wide exposure and is aware of worldly affairs, unlike other women who are not educated and completely dependent upon their spouses for basic sustenance.”
According to case records, the couple married in December 2019 and moved to Singapore. However, the woman alleged that due to cruelty from her husband and his family, she returned to India in February 2021. She claimed to have sold her jewelry to finance her return and, due to financial hardship, moved in with her maternal uncle.
In June 2021, she filed a petition for maintenance, arguing that she was unemployed and had no independent income, while her husband was earning well and leading a luxurious lifestyle. However, the trial court rejected her plea, prompting her to approach the high court.
Her husband opposed the plea, calling it a “gross abuse of process of law”, and argued that she was highly qualified and capable of earning her own livelihood. The court agreed, noting that she held a master’s degree from Australia and was previously earning well in Dubai.
The high court found no evidence of her efforts to seek employment and observed that “the mere assertion of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts of self-sufficiency.” It also referred to certain conversations between the woman and her mother, which it said suggested mala fide intent behind her maintenance claim.
“A well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband. Therefore, interim maintenance is being discouraged in the present case as this court can see potential in the petitioner to earn and make good of her education,” Justice Singh ruled.
(With inputs from PTI)