Delhi High Court denied maintenance to an educated wife, stating she must work instead of relying on her husband. WhatsApp chats revealed she avoided employment to claim alimony.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court (DHC) Yesterday (March 19) gave a very important judgment in a case where a wife, who is highly educated, asked for Rs 3.25 lakh per month as interim maintenance from her husband.
The Family Court had rejected her request. She then challenged this decision in the High Court, but the DHC also dismissed her petition, agreeing with the Family Court’s order.
ALSO READ: Legal RemedieHow Can Bedridden Grandparents Implicated in Sec 498A Case? Bombay HC
The case involved a woman who married in December 2019 and moved to Singapore with her husband. However, due to alleged cruelty, she returned to India in February 2021. Later, she filed for maintenance, saying she had no job or income to support herself.
Her husband, on the other hand, argued that she was well-educated and fully capable of earning. He presented various proofs, including her past work experience at KPMG Dubai, her degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, and her previous business in semi-precious jewelry. The court noted that despite her high qualifications, she had not made any real effort to find a job after coming back to India.
The court observed WhatsApp chats between the wife and her mother, where she was advised that if she took a job, it could reduce her chances of getting alimony.
This raised doubts about her intentions. One message stated, “I’m thinking I’ll poison his food”, another said,
“I want to give him poison”,
and she further mentioned,
“I am losing patience now”,
and
“I want to poison him”.
The husband also claimed that he had lost his job and could not afford such a high maintenance amount. The court found that he had submitted proper documents proving his job loss, while the wife had not provided any evidence of her financial struggles.
The High Court agreed with the lower court’s decision, stating that-
“A well-qualified wife cannot be allowed to sit idle waiting for dole to be awarded by her husband.”
The judge also referred to several past judgments where courts have ruled that an educated spouse should try to earn rather than depend entirely on maintenance.
ALSO READ: How Can Bedridden Grandparents Implicated in Sec 498A Case? Bombay HC
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court case Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199, where it was stated that-
“Whether the wife is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different things”
and that merely being capable of earning is not a reason to deny maintenance.
However, the court found that this case did not apply here since there was clear evidence that the wife was deliberately avoiding work.
ALSO READ: “Domestic Violence & Section 498A IPC are the Most Abused Provisions”: Supreme Court
The judge also cited Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801, stating that maintenance is for those who are genuinely in need, not for those who choose to remain unemployed despite having the ability to work.
The court emphasized that-
“It is the husband’s duty to maintain his wife, but only when she truly needs financial support”.
It also pointed out that-
“The petitioner has deliberately avoided employment to maximize maintenance claims.”
The DHC upheld the Family Court’s decision, concluding that the wife was capable of earning and was not entitled to interim maintenance. The judge encouraged her to seek employment and become self-sufficient, rather than depending on her husband.
This case serves as a significant example of how courts consider financial independence and employability while deciding maintenance claims. It reinforces that maintenance laws are meant for genuine financial support, not for unnecessary financial dependence.
Case Title:
Megha Khetrapal vs. Rajat Kapoor
CRL.REV.P. 273/2023 & Crl.M.A.6767/2023
Date of Order: 19th March 2025
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Appearances:
- For the Petitioner (Wife): Mr. Rohit Sehgal, Proxy Counsel
- For the Respondent (Husband): Mr. Aditya Singla, Ms. Supriya Juneja, and Mr. Ritwik Saha, Advocates
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
