Delhi HC rejects maintenance plea, asks wife to ‘actively seek employment’
The Delhi HC's observation came in a case where a qualified woman with a master's degree from Australia and work experience in Dubai sought interim maintenance.
The Delhi High Court, while rejecting a maintenance plea, recently underscored a significant principle: a well-educated wife with suitable job experience should not avoid employment merely to claim maintenance from her husband.
This observation arose during a case where the petitioner, an evidently qualified woman with a master's degree from Australia and prior professional experience in Dubai, was seeking interim maintenance. Her actions, such as residing first with her parents and then with her maternal uncle, appeared to suggest an effort to convince the Court of her inability to earn.
Also Read: Pay maintenance to wife even if her earlier marriage is valid: SC
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, who presided over the case, remarked that the petitioner had wide exposure to worldly affairs and a strong educational background. Unlike women with limited opportunities who depend on their spouses for sustenance, she was equipped with the tools to achieve self-sufficiency. The Court encouraged her to actively seek employment rather than rely on maintenance.
Mother allegedly advised alimony claims
Adding to the complexity of the case, a WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and her mother came under scrutiny. In this communication, the mother allegedly advised her daughter that taking up a job could undermine her alimony claims.
Although the legitimacy of this conversation is to be verified at trial, the Court regarded it as prima facie evidence of deliberate unemployment.
The timing of this exchange, occurring before the maintenance petition was filed, suggested an intentional attempt to remain jobless to strengthen her case for maintenance.
Consequently, the Court determined that the case did not warrant the granting of interim maintenance. It dismissed the wife's plea challenging a family court's earlier order, which denied her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
