Can a Qualified Wife Refuse to Work and Claim Maintenance? Allahabad High Court Answers

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a wife’s appeal seeking maintenance from her husband, holding that a highly qualified professional capable of earning cannot claim support by choosing not to work.

The bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran upheld a trial court order that had denied maintenance to Dr Garima Dubey, an M.D. (Gynaecologist), while directing the husband, Dr Saurabh Anand Dubey, a neurosurgeon, to continue paying Rs. 60,000 per month towards the maintenance of their three children.

The dispute arose out of a pending divorce petition filed by the husband. During the proceedings, the wife and the children had sought interim maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court partly allowed the plea, granting maintenance for the children but rejecting the wife’s claim.

Challenging this decision, the wife approached the high court, contending that she was not currently employed and had been removed from her job following the initiation of matrimonial proceedings. She argued that she was entitled to financial support to maintain the standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage.

Opposing the appeal, the husband submitted that he had been regularly paying maintenance for the children without default. He further argued that the wife, being a specialist doctor, had the capacity to earn more than him and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.

After hearing both sides, the division bench examined the wife’s qualifications and financial capacity. Court noted that she holds a postgraduate degree in gynaecology and possesses the expertise to earn a substantial income in her profession.

The bench also took note of the trial court’s findings based on the wife’s income tax returns, which reflected that she had previously earned more than Rs. 31 lakh per annum.

Rejecting the contention that the wife was currently unemployed, court observed that the mere assertion of not working cannot entitle a qualified individual to maintenance. It held that where a person has the ability and qualifications to earn sufficiently, deliberate abstention from work cannot be used as a ground to impose financial liability on the spouse.

Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, relied upon by the wife, noting that the facts of that case involved an unemployed woman without comparable earning capacity. In contrast, the present case involved a highly qualified professional with proven income.

The bench observed that courts are justified in denying maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in situations where a spouse, despite having the capacity to earn, chooses not to utilise their qualifications and skills.

Finding no error in the trial court’s reasoning, the high court held that the order rejecting the wife’s claim for maintenance did not warrant interference.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Dr Garima Dubey And 3 Others vs. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey

Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran

Order Date: April 21, 2026