Maintenance not meant to promote idleness, says HC
Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), enables wives, children or parents to claim maintenance
The law providing financial support to wives, children and parents was implemented to maintain equality and not promote idleness, the Delhi high court held while upholding a city court’s order denying maintenance to a woman from her estranged husband.
Section 125 of the CrPC, now replaced by section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), enables wives, children or parents to claim maintenance in case a person with sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them.
A bench of justice Chandra Dhari Singh in his verdict delivered on Wednesday, opined that qualified wives capable of earning a livelihood should not remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.
“This Court is of the view that qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should not set up a claim for interim maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses, provide protection to the wives, children and parents, and not promote idleness,” justice Singh held.
The ruling is the second in a week by courts across the country discouraging educated and able individuals from shirking financial responsibilities.
Last week, the Orissa high court – albeit in a case with different circumstances than the Delhi one --- ruled that a well-qualified husband who quits his job to remain idle and unemployed to deprive his wife of maintenance “cannot be appreciated in a civilised society.” In that case, the Orissa high court had ordered a man with BE (Power Electronics) qualifications to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance despite his claim of unemployment.
In the current case, justice Singh maintained, “A well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.”
The woman, 36, approached the high court against the city court’s November 5, 2022 order denying her interim maintenance. In its order, the court while taking note of her educational background and work experience, held that an able-bodied spouse must make reasonable efforts to sustain herself rather than relying entirely on spousal support.
The couple were married in December 2019 and left for Singapore, but she came back to India two years later, citing cruelty by her husband. She later started living with her maternal uncle.
In her petition before the high court, the woman, represented by advocate Rohit Sehgal asserted that the city court failed to appreciate that they got married at a later stage of life when she was 36 and her husband was 40 and that it ignored the substantial gap between her graduation, last job, and the date of marriage. It went on to add that the city court wrongly relied on her LinkedIn profile to assume that she was employed earlier.
The husband, represented by advocate Aditya Singh, asserted that his wife was highly educated as well as capable of earning and could thus not claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC.
In a 21-page order, the court said that it was unable to comprehend the reason behind the woman choosing to remain idle despite being able-bodied and thus discouraged the maintenance.
“This Court is unable to comprehend the fact as to why, despite being able-bodied and well qualified, the petitioner has remained to choose idle since her return to India. Thus, it is held that the learned Principal Judge rightly passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner herein is not entitled to grant of interim maintenance considering the peculiar facts,” the court maintained.
