Delhi High Court Says Homemaker’s Work Cannot Be Dismissed as Idleness, Awards Rs. 50,000 Maintenance

The Delhi High Court has held that the contribution of a homemaker cannot be dismissed as “idleness”, setting aside orders that denied interim maintenance to an estranged wife on the ground that she was well-educated and capable of earning.

Deciding three connected revision petitions arising from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the CrPC, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that equating non-employment with deliberate dependence reflects a flawed understanding of domestic labour and the economic realities of marriage.

The Court upheld the Family Court’s grant of interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 40,000 per month to the minor child, holding that there was no material to show that the wife had any independent income.

The dispute arose out of matrimonial proceedings between the parties, who were married in 2012 and lived together until August 2020, when the husband left for Kuwait for employment.

The wife initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child.

The Metropolitan Magistrate and the Appellate Court had declined interim maintenance to the wife, primarily on the ground that she was an able-bodied, educated woman who had chosen not to work and had allegedly failed to disclose complete financial details.

The High Court found this approach to be legally unsustainable.

After examining the bank statements, the Court noted that the so-called “large transactions” relied upon by the Magistrate were in fact amounts transferred by the husband himself towards monthly expenses after the parties separated. Treating such transfers as the wife’s income was “wholly misplaced”.

Similarly, the Court held that the wife’s disclosure of loans taken from friends and relatives in a period of financial distress could not be treated as proof of financial independence.

On the Appellate Court’s finding that the wife had not filed three years’ bank statements in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha, the High Court said that prior to separation the parties were living together and the husband was maintaining the household, and there was no allegation that the wife had any income during that period. Denial of maintenance on that basis was therefore erroneous.

The Court reiterated the settled distinction between the capacity to earn and actual earning, observing that mere educational qualification or physical ability to work cannot be a ground to deny maintenance in the absence of proof of real income.

Addressing a recurring argument in matrimonial litigation, the Court said:

“The assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution… Managing a household, caring for children, and supporting the family are all forms of labour, even though unpaid.”

Justice Sharma also took note of the social context in India where women often give up employment after marriage due to relocation, childcare, or familial expectations, only to later face the argument that they are deliberately unemployed.

The judgment emphasised the practical barriers to re-entering the workforce after a long career break, noting that skills may become outdated, professional networks weaken and employability is affected.

On the husband’s financial capacity, the Court recorded that he was working as a drilling engineer in Kuwait and earning between approximately Rs. 4 lakh and Rs. 5.3 lakh per month over the relevant period. It rejected his plea that EMIs, personal loans and other voluntary expenses should be deducted while assessing maintenance, holding that only statutory deductions can be excluded and voluntary liabilities cannot override the obligation to maintain a dependent spouse and child.

The Court observed that maintenance is not merely a measure to prevent destitution but also to ensure that the non-earning spouse is not reduced to economic vulnerability while the other continues to enjoy financial stability.

To avoid overlapping orders, the Court harmonised the relief granted under both statutes and directed that:

a) Rs. 50,000 per month be paid to the wife

b) Rs. 40,000 per month be paid to the minor child

The amounts be payable from the date of filing of the respective petitions; arrears be cleared within six months.

While modifying the orders passed in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to bring them in line with the Family Court’s determination, the Court clarified that the observations were only for the purpose of interim maintenance.

Before parting, the Court urged parties in matrimonial disputes to consider mediation instead of prolonged adversarial litigation, noting that maintenance proceedings often become contests in which needs are overstated and income understated, to the detriment of all concerned, especially minor children.

Case Title: Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Judgment: 16.02.2026