The Delhi High Court has stated that a well educated wife with relevant job 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 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 soon moved to Singapore. The petitioner wife claimed that she returned to India in February 2021 due to cruelty inflicted by her husband and his family. She further alleged that her husband revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded in Singapore.
She also asserted that her husband retained possession of her valuables, forcing her to sell all her jewelry to afford her return to India. Facing financial difficulties, she began 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 was never financially or gainfully employed thereafter.
It was also argued that the family court overlooked the significant gap between her graduation, her last job, and the date of marriage, highlighting her deliberate choice to remain unemployed.
Conversely, the husband opposed the plea, contending that his wife was highly educated and capable of earning, and thus, could not seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC solely on the grounds of unemployment.
He further argued that the wife’s demand for Rs. 3,25,000 per month in maintenance was excessive and disproportionate to her previous lifestyle in India. It was also asserted that she had exaggerated his financial status while concealing her own earning potential.
The Court noted that it could not overlook the fact that the wife was undeniably well-qualified and capable. Her decision to reside first with her parents and later with her maternal uncle suggested an attempt to portray herself as financially dependent and unable to earn.
Concluding that the case did not justify granting interim maintenance to 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 stated that the wife’s qualifications and past employment history indicated no reason why she should not be able to support herself in the future.
“Moreover, this Court encourages the petitioner to actively seek employment and become self-sufficient, as she has substantial exposure and awareness of worldly affairs, unlike other women who lack education and are entirely dependent on their spouses for basic sustenance,” the Court remarked.