Wife’s Education or Job Do Not Bar Maintenance Claim, Delhi HC Orders Rs 1.5 Lakh Monthly Support [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that a wife’s claim for interim maintenance cannot be denied merely because she is educated or earning, emphasizing that the determinative test is whether her income is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed during marriage.

Justice Renu Bhatnagar and Justice Navin Chawla delivered significant observations about maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while allowing an appeal that enhanced maintenance from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per month for both wife and child.

The court addressed a plea filed by an Assistant Professor challenging a Family Court order that denied her maintenance while awarding Rs. 35,000 monthly for their minor daughter. The appellant sought Rs. 3,50,000 for herself and enhancement of the child’s maintenance to Rs. 96,000.

The court observed, “In assessing a claim under Section 24 of the HMA, the determinative test is not merely whether the wife is employed or capable of earning, but whether her income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to during cohabitation.”

The case involved parties married on November 22, 2013, who separated in October 2019. The wife, employed as an Assistant Professor at a Delhi University college earning approximately Rs. 1,25,000 monthly, had custody of their daughter born in 2016. The husband worked as a Senior Computer Scientist with Adobe Systems in the USA, earning over Rs. 1 crore annually.

The Family Court had initially denied the wife’s maintenance claim, reasoning that she was sufficiently qualified and employed, capable of sustaining herself independently, and that maintenance under Section 24 was meant to prevent destitution, not equalize incomes.

However, the High Court disagreed with this approach. Justice Bhatnagar noted, “The financial disparity between the parties is stark, the respondent earns nearly ten times the income of the appellant. The very purpose of interim maintenance is to strike a fair balance and ensure parity in lifestyle, so that the financially weaker spouse and the child are not prejudiced by the economic advantage of the other.”

The court emphasized that mere earning capacity does not disqualify a wife from maintenance. Citing the coordinate bench decision in Nidhi Sudan v. Manish Kumar Khanna, the court observed, “Merely because the wife is earning does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding the maintenance. The parameter remains whether her source of income is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself along with the minor child.”

The court further referred to multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai and Rajnesh v. Neha, establishing that maintenance cannot be denied merely because the wife is earning. The court must assess whether her income sufficiently maintains her according to the matrimonial home’s lifestyle standards.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court had laid down comprehensive factors for maintenance assessment, including parties’ social and financial status, reasonable needs of wife and children, educational qualifications, independent income, standard of living in matrimonial home, employment sacrifices for family, and the husband’s financial capacity.

The High Court found the husband’s concealment of financial details problematic, noting he had “intentionally concealed several material financial details, including RSU stocks, foreign assets, income from investments, and perks from employment,” causing the Family Court to pass an inadequate maintenance order.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the wife was highly qualified with earning capacity and that Section 24’s object was not to create an “army of idle persons” or allow lavish living at the other’s expense. They cited cases where maintenance was denied to earning wives who concealed their true income.

However, the court rejected this argument, observing, “The appellant, who has the sole responsibility for the child’s daily care and education, has placed on record her monthly expenditure, which the respondent has not specifically rebutted. Despite her employment, her income does not sufficiently meet the demands of sustaining the standard of living.”

The court emphasized the qualitative difference between the parties’ economic positions, stating, “The learned Family Court erred in treating the wife’s income as sufficient without factoring in the qualitative difference between the economic statuses of the two parties. The financial self-sufficiency of the wife must be assessed not in absolute terms but relative to the standard of living maintained during the marriage.”

The court noted that the wife was currently residing with her parents, which “cannot continue indefinitely,” and her limited earnings compelled dependence on them, causing family inconvenience and hardship. Meanwhile, the husband’s substantially higher income made him financially capable of providing adequate maintenance.

The court therefore concluded, “The mere fact that the appellant is earning does not disentitle her to claim maintenance, as she is entitled to the same standard of living that she enjoyed during her matrimonial life.”

Considering all circumstances including social status, lifestyle, financial status, child’s needs, increasing prices, and the wife’s child-rearing responsibilities, the court enhanced maintenance from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 monthly for both wife and child combined.

[Read Judgment]