Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a petition seeking to set aside the order of the trial court dated November 5, 2022. The trial court had declined her request seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC. 

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held, “Qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should now set up a claim for interim maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses, provide protection to the wives, children and parents, and not promote idleness”. 

Advocate Aditya Singla, representing the husband, presented WhatsApp conversations where the wife allegedly expressed intentions to poison the husband. Additionally, a conversation between the wife and her mother suggested that securing employment might negatively impact her alimony claims. The husband argued that the wife, holding a Master of International Business degree from the University of Wollongong, Australia, deliberately remained unemployed despite being capable of earning a livelihood.

Advocate Aditya Singla referred to the wife’s LinkedIn profile, which confirmed her employment history. The trial court had also noted that while the wife merely mentioned her educational qualifications in her affidavit, she concealed details of her professional background.

The trial court deemed that the wife did not meet the criteria under Section 125(1)(a) of the CrPC for proving an inability to maintain herself. Consequently, the application for interim maintenance was dismissed.

The petitioner filed this revision petition challenging this decision. However, the high court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases of palpable error, non-compliance with legal provisions, or arbitrary judicial discretion. The high court examined whether the wife, being well-qualified and able-bodied, was entitled to interim maintenance despite evidence suggesting deliberate unemployment.

In the present case, the high court observed that the wife asserted financial hardship due to residing with her elderly maternal uncle after leaving her parental home. However, the high court observed that she was a well-qualified and able-bodied individual. The circumstances suggested that she sought to convince the high court of her financial dependence.

While it remained the husband's duty to maintain his wife, the high court reiterated that interim maintenance required a prima facie case proving genuine financial need. Given the wife’s educational qualifications and employment history, the high court found no justification for awarding interim maintenance.

The high court further noted that the husband provided a termination letter dated September 20, 2022, proving his own unemployment. While the wife claimed this was an attempt to evade financial obligations, she failed to present any contradictory evidence.

“Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the mere assertion of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts at self sufficiency”.

The court held that educated wives with the ability to earn should not rely on interim maintenance. Section 125 of the CrPC aimed to ensure protection for dependents, not to promote idleness. Encouraging self-sufficiency, the court noted that the petitioner, having extensive education and work experience, should seek employment rather than remain financially dependent on her estranged husband.

“The petitioner herein has a master’s degree from Australia, she was earning well in a job in Dubai before her marriage, there are certain conversations between the petitioner and her mother which shows the ex facie mala fides on the part of the petitioner etc”, the court emphasized. Therefore, the high court upheld the order of the trial court and dismissed the petition. 

For Wife: Advocate Rohit Sehgal
For Husband: Advocates Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja and Ritwik Saha
Case Title: X v Y