New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court has observed that the law doesn’t promote idling and said qualified women with an earning capacity shouldn’t claim interim maintenance from their husbands.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh on March 19 said Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) carried the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses and provide protection to the wives, children and parents, but didn’t promote “idleness”.
The judge, therefore, dismissed 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. 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 her to actively look for a job to become self-sufficient saying she had a wide exposure and was aware of worldly affairs unlike other uneducated women, who were completely dependent on their spouses for basic sustenance.
The couple married in December 2019 and left for Singapore.
The woman said she returned to India in February 2021 allegedly because of the cruelty meted out to her by her estranged husband and his family members.
She claimed to have sold her jewellery to return to India and started residing with her maternal uncle due to financial hardship.
In June 2021, she filed a petition seeking maintenance from her husband.
The plea was rejected by the trial court following which she moved 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 whereas her husband earned handsomely and had an affluent lifestyle.
The man opposed the plea saying it was an abuse of law as the woman was highly educated and capable of earning. He said the woman couldn’t claim maintenance merely on the grounds of unemployment.
Refusing to grant any relief to the woman, the high court said it was unable to comprehend why, despite being able-bodied and well qualified, she chose to remain idle since her return to India.
The court observed the woman had a master’s degree from Australia and was earning well in Dubai before her marriage.
Agreeing with the trial court, the high court said the woman claimed she couldn’t sit idle and was trying to find a job, but neither did she place any evidence to support her claim nor resume her business activities.
“Mere assertion of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts of self sufficiency,” it added.
Considering certain conversations between the woman and her mother, the court said they showed the “ex facie malafides” on her part to seek maintenance.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Hindkesharistaff and is published from a syndicated feed.)