The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court’s order, which had denied interim maintenance to a well-qualified woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The High Court upheld the Family Court's reasoning that the petitioner-wife, despite possessing a Master's degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, and substantial professional experience, had deliberately remained unemployed to claim maintenance from her estranged husband.
The order, pronounced by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, extensively examined the petitioner's qualifications, employment history, and alleged intent to avoid employment. The High Court found no cogent reasons to interfere with the Family Court’s decision, emphasizing that an "able-bodied and well-qualified" woman must make efforts to sustain herself instead of seeking financial support from her husband.
The respondent-husband had presented multiple pieces of evidence before the Family Court to establish that the petitioner was financially capable but was intentionally choosing not to work. A substantial piece of evidence cited was a WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and her mother, where the latter allegedly advised that securing employment could negatively impact alimony claims.
The Court remarked, “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.”
The High Court reinforced the principles laid down in several landmark judgments concerning maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha (2014), which emphasized that "Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife." The ruling further noted that a wife must "positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her."
Additionally, the Court cited Gurpreet Dhariwal v. Amit Jain (2022), where it was observed that if a wife is well-educated and employable but has not disclosed complete details of her financial position, interim maintenance can be declined.
The High Court scrutinized the petitioner's claims of financial distress and found them unconvincing. The Court noted that the petitioner had initially been residing with her parents and later moved in with her maternal uncle, an arrangement that appeared to be a strategic effort to project financial dependence. Justice Singh remarked: "The whole situation where the petitioner was staying with her parents and now with her maternal uncle indicates that she wants to convince the court that she is unable to earn."
While acknowledging that a husband has a duty to maintain his wife, the Court stressed that interim maintenance requires "prima facie satisfaction" regarding genuine financial need. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence of job-seeking efforts or attempts to revive her business, despite claiming to be actively searching for employment.
The petitioner sought to rely on Shailja v. Khobanna (2018), where the Supreme Court distinguished between being "capable of earning" and "actually earning." However, the High Court rejected this reliance, stating: "In the present case, there is prima facie evidence suggesting deliberate avoidance of employment by the petitioner."
Furthermore, the respondent-husband presented documentary evidence, including a termination letter dated September 20, 2022, indicating his own unemployment, which the petitioner failed to rebut with substantive proof.
The High Court emphasized that maintenance provisions under Section 125 CrPC are meant to protect dependents and not to promote financial idleness. The judgment made a strong statement against educated individuals choosing to remain unemployed solely to claim maintenance, stating:
"Qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should now set up a claim for interim maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses, provide protection to the wives, children and parents, and not promote idleness."
Considering the evidence and legal precedents, the High Court found no grounds to overturn the Family Court’s decision. The Court encouraged the petitioner to seek employment and use her qualifications to sustain herself rather than rely on maintenance claims. The final ruling stated:
"This Court encourages the petitioner to actively look for a job to become self-sufficient as she already got wide exposure and is aware of the worldly affairs unlike other women who are not educated and are completely dependent upon their spouses for basic sustenance."
Upholding the Family Court’s ruling, the High Court held that “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 not set up a claim for interim maintenance.”
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its findings should not influence the final adjudication of the pending marital dispute.
