Allahabad High Court denied maintenance to qualified spouse choosing unemployment. Court upheld order against Garima Dubey, while directing Saurabh Anand Dubey to continue paying Rs 60,000 monthly for children’s support.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a wife’s appeal for maintenance, ruling that a spouse who is highly qualified and capable of earning cannot seek support by intentionally choosing not to work. The decision upheld the trial court’s order refusing maintenance to Dr. Garima Dubey, an M.D. (Gynaecologist), while requiring her husband, Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey (a neurosurgeon), to continue paying Rs. 60,000 per month towards the maintenance of their three children.
The case arose from an ongoing divorce petition filed by the husband. During the proceedings, the wife and the children sought interim maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court granted maintenance for the children, but rejected the wife’s request. The wife then approached the High Court challenging that part of the order.
The wife argued that she was not employed at the moment and claimed that she had lost her job after matrimonial proceedings began. According to her, she should receive financial support to maintain the living standard she enjoyed during the marriage.
In response, the husband submitted that he had been regularly paying maintenance for the children without any default. He further contended that, as a specialist doctor, the wife had the potential to earn more than him and therefore was not entitled to maintenance.
After hearing both parties, the Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran examined the wife’s qualifications and her financial capacity. The Court noted that she holds a postgraduate qualification in gynaecology and possesses skills that enable her to earn a substantial income. It also relied on the trial court’s assessment based on her income tax returns, which indicated that she had previously earned over Rs. 31 lakh per year.
Rejecting the claim that she was presently unemployed, the Court observed that merely stating that one is not working does not automatically entitle a qualified person to maintenance. The bench held that where an individual has both the ability and qualifications to earn, choosing not to work cannot be treated as a basis for shifting financial responsibility onto the spouse.
The High Court also distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, relied upon by the wife. The bench noted that in Chaturbhuj, the relevant facts involved an unemployed woman without comparable earning capacity. In the present matter, the wife was found to be a highly qualified professional with a proven income history.
Concluding that the trial court had not committed any legal error, the High Court held that the rejection of the wife’s maintenance claim under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was justified in the circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Dr Garima Dubey And 3 Others vs. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE