The Delhi High Court has stated that a well-educated wife with relevant job experience should not choose to remain unemployed merely 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 rejected a wife's plea contesting a family court's decision that denied her interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in a matrimonial dispute.

Case Brief: 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 by her husband and his family. She further alleged that her husband revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded alone in Singapore.

She claimed that her husband kept possession of her valuables, forcing her to sell all her jewelry to return to India. Facing financial hardships, she had to take shelter at her maternal uncle's residence.

She stated that she completed her master's degree in 2006 and worked in Dubai from 2005 to 2007 but has not been financially or gainfully employed since then.

It was also argued that the family court overlooked the significant gap between her graduation, last job, and marriage, highlighting that she voluntarily chose not to be gainfully employed and remained idle.

Conversely, the husband opposed the plea, contending that the wife was highly educated and capable of earning. He argued that she could not seek maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC solely on the basis of being unemployed.

It was argued that the wife's demand for ₹3,25,000 per month as maintenance was excessive and disproportionate to her previous lifestyle in India. It was further contended that she had exaggerated the husband's financial status while concealing her own earning potential.

The Court noted that the wife was undeniably well-qualified and able-bodied. It observed that her decision to stay with her parents and later with her maternal uncle appeared to be an attempt to portray herself as incapable of earning.

“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.”

"Considering the above observations, this Court believes that qualified wives who have the capacity to earn but choose to remain idle should not be entitled to claim interim maintenance," the Court stated.

The Court further noted that the wife's qualifications and past employment record indicated no valid reason why she should not be capable of supporting herself in the future.