Qualified Wife Can Be Directed To Seek Employment But Failure To Secure Job Won't Automatically End Maintenance: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that while a professionally qualified wife claiming interim maintenance may be directed by the Court to make bona fide efforts to secure suitable employment, her failure to obtain a job cannot automatically result in the cessation of maintenance.

Clarifying the scope of such Court directions, the Court said that the wife's obligation is confined to making genuine and reasonable efforts to secure employment, and that any reconsideration of maintenance must depend on her actual employment, income, and other relevant circumstances.

“A professionally qualified spouse may, therefore, be required to make bona fide efforts towards securing suitable employment. Such a direction is neither beyond the jurisdiction nor outside the discretion of the Court. However, the capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings," the Court remarked.

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while deciding cross-revision petitions filed by a husband and wife against a common appellate order concerning interim maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The wife had challenged the appellate court's direction requiring her to seek re-employment within one year and to place on record the genuine efforts she had made, contending that her educational qualifications or mere capacity to earn could not be equated with actual employment or an independent source of income.

Examining the issue, the High Court held that interim maintenance is provisional in nature and courts may, in appropriate cases, grant it for a specified period or direct reconsideration after a reasonable interval.

It was observed that, in doing so, courts may take into account the age, qualifications, previous employment, health, family responsibilities, and present employability of the spouse claiming maintenance.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shailja and Another v. Khobbanna (2017), wherein it was held that whether a wife is capable of earning and whether she is actually earning are "two different requirements," and that merely because she is capable of earning is not sufficient reason to reduce maintenance.

Applying the above principle, Justice Jain upheld the appellate court's direction requiring the wife to make genuine efforts to obtain employment. However, the Court clarified that the direction could not be construed as compelling her to secure employment within the stipulated period.

"The wife cannot be compelled to secure employment within the stipulated period. Her obligation is confined to making bona fide and reasonable efforts. Any reconsideration of maintenance shall depend upon her actual employment and income, the efforts made by her, her reasonable needs, the financial capacity and liabilities of the husband and the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time. Mere expiry of one year shall not result in automatic cessation of maintenance," the Court held.

On the facts of the case, the High Court upheld the original award of interim maintenance of ₹1 lakh per month from January 11, 2019 to November 7, 2021, holding that it was supported by the husband's salary credits, Form-16 and bank statements during the period when he was receiving substantial remuneration.

It rejected the wife's plea seeking enhancement of maintenance to ₹3.38 lakh per month.

The Court, however, partly allowed the husband's revision petition in view of the subsequent cessation of his salary and modified the maintenance payable for the period from November 8, 2021 to May 19, 2022 to ₹15,000 per month.

It further held that from May 20, 2022 onwards, the parties would continue to be governed by the separate order passed under Section 25(2) of the DV Act awarding interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.

Case Title: DHIRENDRA KUMAR v SWATI SAISTA (and connected case)