The Delhi High Court has ruled that the law relating to maintenance for wives, children, and parents is meant to seek equality between spouses and protection, not idleness. The court said this while dismissing a plea by a woman challenging a trial court’s order rejecting her petition for interim maintenance from her estranged husband.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in passing the judgment, opined that Section 125 of the CrPC has legislative intent to bring about equality among spouses and safeguard necessary protection, but it has no intention to aid those who are willing to stay idle and can earn themselves.
The married woman, in December 2019, went to Singapore along with her husband. The woman, who alleged cruelty from her husband and his family members, came back to India in February 2021. After going through a financial crisis, she said that she had sold all her ornaments and started residing with her maternal uncle. In June 2021, the woman filed a maintenance petition against her husband, which was denied by the trial court.
Pleading her case in the High Court, the woman alleged she was jobless, had no separate income, and that her husband lived in luxury. The husband, however, countered her plea, saying she was highly educated, was capable of working, and trying to abuse the legal process.
ALSO READ
The High Court of India said the woman possessed a master’s degree from Australia and had previously gained employment in Dubai, earning good money. The court wanted to know why she had opted to do nothing when she was highly qualified and capable physically.
Justice Singh commented, “A well-educated wife, having experience in a suitable gainful occupation, should not sit idle merely to earn maintenance from her husband.” The court also noted that the woman had failed to produce any evidence to show genuine attempts to find work or resume business activities.
The court considered some dialogue between the woman and her mother indicating an attempt to claim maintenance without just cause. Therefore, the court relied upon the order of the trial court to reject interim maintenance.
In rejecting her plea, the court urged the woman to work hard and be independent. It emphasized that she had more exposure to the world and education than other women who may truly not have the means to fend for themselves.
The ruling emphasizes the rule that maintenance laws are not to be abused by able- odied persons who want money without real need.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.