E-Paper
Capable women shouldn't seek interim alimony, law doesn't support idleness: Delhi High Court
The judge made the remarks while dismissing a woman's plea against a trial court order denying her interim maintenance from her estranged husband.
The Delhi high court has observed that qualified women with an earning capacity should not claim interim maintenance from their husbands and pointed out that the law does not promote idling, reported PTI.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, on March 19, said that Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents) of the CrPC carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses and provide protection to the wives, children, and parents but does not promote "idleness."
The judge made the remarks while dismissing a woman's plea against a trial court order denying her interim maintenance from her estranged husband.
“A well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband,” Justice Singh was quoted as saying by PTI.
Also Read | Quitting job to deny wife alimony is not appreciated in civilised society: Orissa HC
"Therefore, interim maintenance is being discouraged in the present case as this court can see potential in the petitioner to earn and make good of her education," Justice Singh said.
The court, however, encouraged the woman's petitioner to look for a job to become self-sufficient actively.
It also pointed out that she had wide exposure and was aware of worldly affairs, unlike other uneducated women, who were completely dependent on their spouses for basic sustenance.
According to PTI, the couple married in December 2019 and left for Singapore.
The woman alleged owing to the cruelties meted out to her by her estranged husband and his family members, she returned to India in February 2021.
She claimed to have sold her jewellery to return to India, but due to financial hardships, she started residing with her maternal uncle.
In June 2021, she filed a petition seeking maintenance from her husband. The trial court rejected the plea, and she then moved to the high court.
The woman claimed the trial court erred in rejecting her plea for maintenance as she was unemployed and had no independent source of income.
On the other hand, she claimed that her husband earned handsomely and led an affluent lifestyle.
