The Delhi High Court has ruled that a well-educated wife with relevant work experience should not stay jobless solely to claim 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 dismissed a wife’s plea challenging a family court’s decision to deny her interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in a matrimonial dispute.
The couple married in 2019 and later moved to Singapore. The petitioner wife claimed she returned to India in February 2021 due to alleged cruelty by her husband and his family. She further asserted that her husband revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded in Singapore.
She also alleged that her husband withheld her valuables, forcing her to sell all her jewelry to finance her return to India. Facing financial hardship, she started living 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 financially or gainfully employed since then.
It was further argued that the family court failed to consider the substantial gap between her graduation, last employment, and marriage, emphasizing that she had intentionally chosen to remain unemployed.
On the other hand, the husband opposed her plea, arguing that she was highly educated and capable of earning, and therefore, could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC solely on the basis of being unemployed.
He further contended that the wife’s demand for ₹3,25,000 per month in maintenance was excessive and disproportionate to her previous standard of living in India. He also argued that she had overstated his financial status while concealing her own earning potential.
The Court observed that the wife was undeniably well-qualified and capable of earning. It also noted that her decision to first stay with her parents and later with her maternal uncle appeared to be an attempt to present herself as financially dependent and incapable of supporting herself.
Determining that the case did not warrant interim maintenance for the wife, the Court stated:
“Regarding the prima facie evidence of deliberate unemployment, the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and her mother, legitimacy of which can be determined at the appropriate stage of trial, wherein the mother advises that employment would jeopardize alimony claims, is particularly telling. This communication, preceding the maintenance petition, strongly suggests a deliberate attempt to remain unemployed to seek maintenance claims.”
“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 further noted that the wife’s qualifications and previous work experience suggested no valid reason preventing her from supporting herself in the future.
Furthermore, the Court urged the petitioner to actively pursue employment and attain self-sufficiency, emphasizing that, unlike women who lack education and are entirely reliant on their spouses for basic sustenance, she possesses significant exposure and awareness of worldly affairs.
