The Delhi High Court ruled that a woman stepping away from employment to care for her minor child as a single parent cannot be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned her job. In a matrimonial dispute concerning interim maintenance, the Court upheld the trial court's order granting monthly support to the woman and her son, observing that the decision to leave employment was necessitated by her maternal responsibilities.
The matter arose from a challenge to an October 2023 order passed by the Family Court, wherein the husband was directed to pay ₹7,500 each to his estranged wife and their minor child as interim maintenance. Dissatisfied, the husband approached the High Court seeking reversal of the order, claiming that the woman had left her matrimonial home voluntarily and was capable of sustaining herself financially.
According to the husband’s submissions, his wife was a qualified professional who had previously worked as a guest teacher in a Delhi government school, drawing a substantial monthly income of ₹40,000 to ₹50,000, including earnings from tuition. He contended that she had filed the maintenance proceedings only to trouble him and further alleged that she refused to comply with a court order directing the restoration of conjugal ties. He also claimed his own income, as a practising advocate in Haryana, was modest, ranging between ₹10,000 and ₹15,000 monthly, making it difficult for him to follow the family court’s order.
The woman, in response, submitted that she had discontinued her professional work to focus on full-time caregiving duties for their minor child, which she asserted left her unable to continue regular employment. She argued that the demands of commuting and the lack of childcare support near her residence compelled her to abandon her teaching career. She insisted that her inability to work should not be held against her in determining her entitlement to maintenance.
While considering the arguments, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasised that caregiving responsibilities typically fall upon the parent who has custody of the child, particularly in the absence of extended family support. The Court observed, “It is well settled that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support to take care of the child while the mother is at work.”
Further, the Court made it clear that the woman’s decision to leave her job should not be interpreted as voluntary desertion, but rather as a step compelled by the overarching responsibility of parenting.
“The cessation of employment in such circumstances cannot be viewed as voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care,” the Court noted.
Ultimately, the High Court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's order. While affirming the monthly maintenance of ₹7,500 to the wife, the Court slightly modified the amount payable for the child, directing the husband to pay ₹4,500 per month towards his upkeep. The Court also noted that the man's income certificate was not on record and instructed the Family Court to re-examine the matter of interim maintenance. Meanwhile, the existing arrangement was ordered to continue.
Picture Source :