The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, stated that well-educated, qualified women with the capacity to earn a living should not rely on their estranged husbands for interim maintenance, reinforcing that the law is meant to ensure protection and equality — not to encourage idleness. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, presiding over the case on March 19, clarified that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was designed to safeguard the financial well-being of wives, children, and parents who are genuinely unable to support themselves, but it doesn’t serve as a means to promote financial dependence when a person is capable of self-sufficiency. The court dismissed a woman’s plea challenging a trial court order that had earlier denied her interim maintenance from her estranged husband, emphasizing that a woman who is well-qualified and has prior work experience should not remain unemployed purely to secure monetary support from her spouse.
Justice Singh remarked that a capable, educated woman, equipped with experience and a track record of gainful employment, is expected to use her potential to support herself rather than depend on her husband. The court encouraged the woman to actively pursue a job to become self-reliant, noting that she had wide exposure and a better understanding of worldly affairs than many uneducated women who genuinely rely on their husbands for basic sustenance.
The case involved a couple who got married in December 2019 and subsequently moved to Singapore. The woman alleged that she faced severe cruelty from her husband and his family, which compelled her to return to India in February 2021. She claimed she sold her jewelry to afford the journey back and, facing dire financial circumstances, started living with her maternal uncle. By June 2021, she filed a petition seeking financial maintenance from her husband, asserting that she was unemployed and without any independent income, while her husband, she argued, earned significantly and enjoyed a comfortable, affluent lifestyle.
The trial court dismissed her plea, leading her to appeal the decision in the high court. In her petition, the woman argued that the trial court had erred in denying her interim maintenance, considering her lack of income and her husband's alleged financial prosperity. She contended that, given his high earnings and affluent lifestyle, she was entitled to support.
Her husband opposed the plea, asserting that his wife was highly educated, skilled, and fully capable of earning her own living. He argued that she could not claim maintenance solely on the basis of unemployment, especially when she possessed qualifications and professional experience that made her employable. He accused her of misusing the law for financial gain and urged the court to recognize that the maintenance laws were meant for those who genuinely needed financial support — not those who chose to remain idle despite having the ability to work.
The high court upheld the trial court's decision, agreeing that the woman had made no sincere effort to become self-sufficient. It highlighted that she held a master's degree from Australia and had a well-paying job in Dubai before her marriage. Despite her education and past career, she chose not to resume her professional life or engage in any business activity after returning to India. The court remarked that, while she claimed to be looking for a job, she failed to provide any evidence to back this assertion, such as job applications, interviews, or proof of efforts made to secure employment. It ruled that mere verbal claims of job-seeking were insufficient without tangible proof of her attempts to find work.
Moreover, the court examined conversations between the woman and her mother, which it described as showing "ex facie malafides" — clear, obvious bad intent — in her pursuit of maintenance. These exchanges, the court noted, suggested that the woman’s primary motive was to secure financial support rather than make a genuine attempt at becoming financially independent.
The judgment underscores a growing shift in the legal approach to maintenance claims, particularly in cases involving educated, capable women. It reflects a nuanced understanding of modern relationships and the evolving roles of spouses. While maintenance laws remain essential to protect vulnerable partners who cannot support themselves, the court’s decision reinforces that such protections should not be misused by individuals who are fully capable of earning a living but choose not to.
The ruling serves as a reminder that the legal system aims to foster fairness and self-reliance, promoting equality between spouses rather than enabling financial dependence. It sends a strong message that individuals regardless of gender, who have the ability and qualifications to earn a livelihood should strive for self-sufficiency instead of relying on their estranged partners for financial support.
