Capable but unemployed spouse can’t saddle partner with expenses: Delhi HC
Noting that the wife was voluntarily working as a social worker despite being a graduate, the court said the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, maintenance provisions are gender-neutral
New Delhi: A spouse who chooses to remain idle irrespective of having an earning capacity cannot be allowed to saddle the other person with one sided responsibility to meet expenses, the Delhi high court has said while reducing the maintenance amount awarded to a woman.
Noting that the wife was voluntarily working as a social worker irrespective of being a graduate, the court said maintenance provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) are gender-neutral.
“The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses,” a bench led by justice V Kameshwar Rao observed on Tuesday.
The bench also comprising justice Anoop Mendiratta further said, “The equivalence does not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income. The provision is gender neutral and the provisions of Section 24 & 25 of HMA provide for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from marriage between the parties under HMA.”
Also Read: Delhi high court stays ED’s investigation against Hero MotoCorp’s Pawan Munjal
The observations come at a time when a coordinate bench led by justice Suresh Kumar Kait in September had similarly interpreted the maintenance provision under HMA ,and ruled that the same is not meant to create an army of idle people waiting for benefits to be provided by their partners.
The high court was considering a plea filed by the husband challenging family court’s April, 2022 order of directing him to pay his wife maintenance of ₹30,000 per month along with litigation expenses of ₹51,000. The family court while enhancing the amount had taken into consideration the affidavit of income, assets and expenditure had observed that the wife had no independent source of income.
The husband appearing through advocate Aditya Gaur submitted that he was directed to pay maintenance of ₹2,000 under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Domestic Violence Act) which was further enhanced to ₹30,000 under the Hindu Marriage Act without any change in circumstances. He also stated that his wife was working as a receptionist in a hospital and was earning more than ₹25,000.
The wife appearing through advocate Sachin Bansal submitted that the thought the court had directed the husband to pay maintenance of ₹21,000 under the Domestic Violence Act but the same was challenged before the sessions court. He also added that the wife was only working as a social worker and was not drawing any salary.