Wife Entitled to Maintenance Despite High Qualifications, Says Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently held that a highly qualified but jobless wife is entitled to maintenance until she secures gainful employment or establishes a source of income.
In doing so, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the husband’s criminal revision petition seeking setting aside of the Family Court's grant of ad-interim maintenance of a sum of Rs 1,00,000 per month to the respondent wife.
The Court said, “There is no denial that the respondent (wife) is highly qualified and has excellent skills in HR and may, with an effort, be able to get a job. However, it cannot be overlooked that there is nothing to show that she is presently employed. It cannot be said that she has intentionally left the job, considering that she had left the job when she shifted to Australia after her marriage.”
“Till such time she is able to get gainful employment or develop a source of income, she has a right of being supported and managed by the petitioner, her husband,” it added.
The petitioner husband, an Australian citizen, and the respondent wife got married on 3 April 2022, but because of their matrimonial differences, they separated on 9 April 2023. The wife then filed a plea under Section 144 BNSS seeking monthly maintenance. Multiple mediation attempts failed between December 2024 and May 2025.
The Family Court granted her ad-interim maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 per month.
The husband argued that the respondent wife is a highly qualified and accomplished individual with an extensive academic background and a strong professional trajectory. She holds degrees of Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Sociology, Master of Arts in Psychology with specialization in Organizational Behaviour, an Executive Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM), and a Certification in Personnel Management and Human Resources.
He added that she had gained significant industry exposure through her tenure at HCL Technologies, where she was engaged in high-level HR functions and was notably responsible for assisting Google as a client.
He submitted that Aashna enjoys a luxurious lifestyle, has taken international trips, lives with her retired Army officer father, and does not support any dependents.
On the other hand, the wife contended that she shifted to Australia to be with him. Barely within a year, she had been turned out of the matrimonial home and was left high and dry on the roadside. She had taken shelter in a Gurudwara and then contacted her family and friends to arrange a ticket for her return to India. It is submitted that such life atrocities have been committed on her.
Noting that the wife had left her job at the time of her marriage with the husband, the Court said, “Presently she is residing with her parents and being supported by them. Merely because she is highly qualified, in the present situation, can it be considered as a ground to deny her interim maintenance, especially when it may take some time for her to get some employment for her sustenance.”
Emphasising that the order of maintenance is only ad-interim, the Court observed that the interim maintenance order shall be re-assessed after considering the income affidavits, which have been filed subsequent to this order, and by taking into account the financial capacity and responsibilities of both parties, aside from their personal qualifications.
“To say at this stage that by granting maintenance to the respondent despite her earning capacity would be breeding a class of idle women who become a burden on their husband may be premature and unwarranted, especially considering that it is only an ad-interim maintenance order to provide immediate relief to the lady till such time the interim maintenance application is decided,” the Court added.
Upholding the Family Court's order, the Court added, “There is no merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, the observations made herein are not an expression on the merits of the case. Parties are at liberty to make their rival contentions before the learned Judge, Family Court, while the interim maintenance application is being considered.”
Case Title: X vs Y
Order Date: 10th July 2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna