NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that a well-educated wife with prior work experience cannot choose to remain unemployed merely to seek maintenance from her husband. The Court emphasised the importance of women’s education and financial independence, stating that capable individuals should strive for self-sufficiency.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that a wife with suitable qualifications and prior work experience should not remain idle solely to claim maintenance. The ruling came while dismissing a plea challenging a family court’s decision to deny interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a matrimonial dispute.
The couple married in 2019 and moved to Singapore soon after. The petitioner-wife alleged that she faced cruelty from her husband and his family, forcing her return to India in February 2021. She also claimed that her husband revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded in Singapore.
According to her submissions, she had earned a master’s degree in 2006 and worked in Dubai between 2005 and 2007. However, she had not been financially employed since then. She argued that the family court failed to consider her substantial employment gap, demonstrating that she had not been gainfully employed for years.
She further alleged that her valuables remained in her husband’s possession, compelling her to sell her jewelry to finance her journey back to India. Facing financial hardships, she sought shelter with her maternal uncle.
The husband contested her claims, asserting that she was highly educated and capable of supporting herself. He argued that unemployment alone was not a valid reason to claim maintenance. He also contended that the Rs 3,25,000 monthly maintenance demanded by his wife was excessive and misrepresented both his financial standing and her earning potential.
The Court noted that despite being well-qualified and physically capable of working, the petitioner chose to live with her parents and later her maternal uncle, portraying herself as financially dependent.
It cited WhatsApp messages between the petitioner and her mother, which suggested a deliberate attempt to remain unemployed to strengthen her maintenance claim.
Regarding the prima facie evidence of deliberate unemployment, the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and her mother, the 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 account the observations made hereinabove, the Court is of the view that qualified wives, who have the capacity to earn but choose to remain idle, should not be entitled to interim maintenance.”