Highly qualified Wife should work instead of asking for maintenance, Delhi High Court

Maintenance Dispute (Judgment Dated 19th March 2025)

The case of CRL.REV.P. 273/2023 before the High Court of Delhi revolves around a petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petitioner challenged the order dated 5th November 2022, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which denied her interim maintenance. The court, after careful consideration, upheld the lower court’s decision, dismissing the petition. Below is a detailed legal analysis of the case:

Case History

The petitioner-wife married the respondent-husband on 11th December 2019 and moved to Singapore shortly after. However, due to alleged cruelty by the husband and his family, she returned to India on 20th February 2021. The petitioner claimed that her husband revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded in Singapore, and took possession of her valuables, forcing her to sell her jewelry to return to India. Upon her return, she faced financial hardships and began living with her maternal uncle. In June 2021, she filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband, along with an application for interim maintenance. The lower court dismissed her application, prompting her to file the present revision petition.

Wife’s Arguments

1. Financial Dependency: The petitioner argued that she was unemployed and had no independent source of income. She relied on her family for financial support and claimed that her husband, who earned a substantial salary in Singapore (₹27,22,723 per month), had abandoned her without financial assistance.
2. Legal Obligation of Maintenance: The petitioner contended that the respondent’s obligation to maintain her did not cease merely because he claimed to have lost his job. She relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, which held that a husband must disclose all sources of income to determine his ability to pay maintenance.
3. Capable of Earning vs. Actual Earning: The petitioner cited Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, arguing that being “capable of earning” is not sufficient grounds to deny maintenance unless the respondent proves she has an independent source of income.
4. LinkedIn Profile Misinterpretation: The petitioner argued that the lower court erred in relying on her LinkedIn profile to assume she was earning. She contended that the existence of a LinkedIn profile does not prove actual employment or financial independence.

Husband’s Arguments

1. Capability to Earn: The respondent argued that the petitioner was highly educated, holding a Master’s degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, and had prior work experience at KPMG Dubai and in her father’s business. He contended that she was capable of earning and deliberately chose to remain unemployed to claim maintenance.
2. Termination of Employment: The respondent claimed he had lost his job and produced a termination letter dated 20th September 2022 as evidence. He argued that he was currently unemployed and unable to pay maintenance.
3. WhatsApp Conversations: The respondent presented WhatsApp conversations between the petitioner and her mother, where the mother advised that getting a job could jeopardize her alimony claims. This, according to the respondent, indicated that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding employment to maximize her maintenance claims.
4. Excessive Maintenance Demand: The respondent argued that the petitioner’s demand for ₹3,25,000 per month was excessive and disproportionate to her previous lifestyle in India.

Court’s View

The court, after examining the facts and arguments, upheld the lower court’s decision to deny interim maintenance. The key points of the court’s analysis are as follows:

1. Educational and Professional Qualifications: The court noted that the petitioner was highly educated, with a Master’s degree and significant work experience, including roles at KPMG Dubai and her father’s business. Her LinkedIn profile confirmed her professional history, which she had not disclosed in her income affidavit.
2. Deliberate Unemployment: The court found prima facie evidence that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding employment to claim maintenance. The WhatsApp conversations between the petitioner and her mother, where the mother advised against seeking employment to secure alimony, were particularly telling.
3. Burden of Proof: The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of her efforts to seek employment or resume her business activities. Mere assertions of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, were insufficient to establish genuine financial hardship.
4. Respondent’s Financial Status: While the petitioner argued that the respondent was financially well-off, the court noted that he had produced a termination letter proving his unemployment. The petitioner failed to provide evidence to contradict this.
5. Legal Precedents: The court relied on several judgments, including Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, and Gurpreet Dhariwal v. Amit Jain, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1066, which held that a well-qualified wife capable of earning should not remain idle to claim maintenance.
6. Purpose of Section 125 CrPC: The court reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is intended to provide financial support to spouses in genuine need, not to promote idleness. The petitioner’s qualifications and work experience indicated that she was capable of maintaining herself.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, being highly educated and capable of earning, was not entitled to interim maintenance. The court encouraged her to seek employment and become self-sufficient, emphasizing that Section 125 CrPC is not a tool for financial oppression but a means to provide genuine support to those in need.

Critical Observations

1. Evidence is Crucial: wife’s failure to provide evidence of her job-seeking efforts and financial hardship weakened her case. Courts require concrete proof of inability to maintain oneself when claiming maintenance.
2. Capability to Earn: The distinction between being “capable of earning” and “actually earning” is significant. While the former does not automatically disqualify a spouse from claiming maintenance, deliberate unemployment to maximize claims can lead to denial of relief.
3. Transparency in Disclosures: wife’s failure to disclose her educational and professional qualifications in her income affidavit raised questions about her credibility. Full and honest disclosure is essential in maintenance cases.
4. Judicial Discretion: The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, considering both the Wife’s qualifications and the husband’s financial status. It underscores the importance of judicial discretion in maintenance cases.

Final Thoughts

This case highlights the evolving judicial approach to maintenance claims, particularly in cases involving highly educated and capable spouses. While the law aims to protect financially dependent spouses, it also discourages deliberate unemployment to claim maintenance. The judgment serves as a reminder that maintenance is a right grounded in genuine need, not a tool for financial exploitation.

#MaintenanceDispute,#Section125CrPC,#SpousalSupportCase,#DelhiHighCourtJudgment,#InterimMaintenance,#FamilyLawCase,#MatrimonialDispute,#LegalBattle2025,#MaintenanceLaw,#CapableOfEarningVsActualEarning,#FinancialDependency,#LegalObligations,#DeliberateUnemployment,#BurdenOfProof,#JudicialDiscretion,#MatrimonialRights,#FamilyCourtCases,#MatrimonialLaw,#LegalPrecedents,#IndianJudiciary,#CourtJudgments,#LegalReforms