Domestic Contributions Cannot Be Termed ‘Idleness’: Delhi HC
Holding that managing a household and raising a child are real and valuable contributions, even if they do not generate taxable income, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a non-earning wife cannot be denied interim maintenance merely because she is educated or capable of working.
The Court observed that equating non-employment with “idleness” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic labour and ignores the realities of marital life.
In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, the settled legal distinction between the capacity to earn and actual earning. It held that merely because a wife is educated or has undertaken a professional course does not disentitle her from maintenance in the absence of material showing that she is actually earning sufficient income to sustain herself.
The High Court found that the lower courts had erred in treating certain bank transactions, primarily transfers made by the husband towards “monthly expenses”, as evidence of the wife’s income. Such transfers, the Court noted, could not be construed as independent earnings.
It further observed that in many Indian households, women discontinue employment after marriage due to relocation, childcare responsibilities, or family expectations. Expecting a woman to immediately re-enter the workforce after a prolonged break ignores practical challenges such as outdated skills and reduced employability.
The case arose from matrimonial proceedings between a husband employed in Kuwait and a wife residing in India with their minor child. The husband had been working overseas since 2015 and returned abroad in August 2020, leaving the wife and child in India. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the PWDV Act seeking maintenance.
Under the PWDV Act proceedings, the Magistrate granted Rs. 10,000 per month towards the child but denied maintenance to the wife. The Appellate Court enhanced maintenance for the child to Rs. 50,000 per month (later Rs. 60,000), yet again declined maintenance to the wife, citing incomplete disclosure of bank statements.
In parallel proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court awarded Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 40,000 per month to the minor child.
Examining the husband’s financial records, the Court noted that he was earning between USD 5,000 and 6,400 per month in Kuwait, translating to approximately Rs.4-5.3 lakh per month during the relevant period. Bank records also reflected significant savings, including fixed deposits exceeding ₹1 crore.
Rejecting the argument that EMIs and voluntary financial commitments should reduce his maintenance liability, the Court held that only statutory deductions can be considered. Voluntary loans and investments cannot override the legal obligation to maintain a dependent spouse and minor child.
While acknowledging the higher cost of living abroad, the Court found that the husband had adequate financial capacity and had previously transferred substantial amounts towards family expenses.
The High Court set aside the denial of interim maintenance to the wife under the PWDV Act and harmonised the relief granted under both statutes. It directed that interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 40,000 per month to the minor child shall be payable, with adjustment/set-off between proceedings to avoid duplication.
The enhancement of Rs. 60,000 per month granted to the child under the PWDV Act was reduced to Rs. 40,000 per month to ensure uniformity. The amounts were directed to be payable from the date of filing of the respective petitions, with arrears to be cleared within six months.
Clarifying that the observations were confined to interim maintenance, the Court also encouraged parties to consider mediation rather than prolong adversarial litigation, particularly where minor children are involved. (ANI)
