Qualified Wife Choosing to Remain Idle Not Entitled to Maintenance: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a doctor-wife seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that a qualified person capable of earning substantially through the use of her expertise, but who deliberately refrains from doing so to impose a financial burden on her spouse, cannot claim maintenance under Section 24.

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran, while dismissing the appeal on 21.04.2026, upheld the trial court’s order rejecting the wife’s application for maintenance while affirming the direction to pay ₹60,000 per month towards the maintenance of the three children.

The respondent husband, a neurosurgeon, had filed a divorce petition against the appellant wife, a qualified gynaecologist holding an M.D. degree in Gynaecology. Both parties are residents of Prayagraj. The appellant wife, along with their three children, had filed an application before the trial court seeking maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

By order dated 07.04.2025, the trial court rejected the wife’s application under Section 24 but granted maintenance of ₹60,000 per month for the three children under Section 26, which the husband had been paying without objection. Aggrieved by the rejection of her personal maintenance claim, the wife filed the present appeal before the High Court.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the wife was presently unemployed as she had been removed from the hospital after the filing of the divorce case by the respondent husband, and that she was entitled to be supported by him in order to maintain the same standard of living she had enjoyed before the separation. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, reported in 2008 AIR SC 530, to argue that maintenance must be granted where the spouse is unable to maintain herself.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent had been faithfully paying ₹60,000 per month towards the maintenance of the children without objection, and that the appellant was a trained specialist gynaecologist capable of earning more than the respondent himself in a state like Uttar Pradesh. He further submitted that the trial court had rightly dismissed her application under Section 24 on account of her qualifications and earning capacity, relying on her income tax returns which reflected earnings exceeding ₹31 lakhs per annum.

The Court distinguished the reliance placed on Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, observing that in the said case, the Supreme Court had dismissed the husband’s appeal after concluding that the wife was genuinely unemployed and that the husband had sufficient means to maintain her. In the present case, however, the Court noted that the facts disclosed an entirely different set of circumstances, as the appellant was a trained gynaecologist capable of earning substantially in her profession.

Rejecting the contention that the wife was presently not working, the Court held:

“Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24.”

The Court noted that the trial court had relied upon the wife’s income tax returns, which reflected earnings of more than ₹31 lakhs per annum, and found no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The Court further observed that the husband was already complying with his obligation towards the children by paying ₹60,000 per month under Section 26, and that there was no dispute regarding that aspect. The only question before the Court was the wife’s entitlement to interim maintenance under Section 24, which the Court answered in the negative.

Case Details:

• Case Title: Dr. Garima Dubey and 3 Others v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey
• Case Number: First Appeal No. 594 of 2025 (2026 SCC OnLine All 3354)
• Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 2
• Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran
• Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
• Statute: Sections 24 and 26, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Outcome: Appeal dismissed; trial court order rejecting wife’s maintenance claim upheld
• Precedent Distinguished: Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, 2008 AIR SC 530

Appearances:

For the Appellants: Akarsh Dwivedi, Mrigendra Singh, Suvrat Dwivedi, Advocates

For the Respondent: Abhishek Tripathi, Firoz Haider, Priya Saxena, Sanjay Kumar Pal, Advocates

[Read Order]