Delhi Court: Unemployed Spouse’s Maintenance Realities

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that a spouse, capable of earning but choosing unemployment without a valid reason, should not impose financial burdens on the other partner. The court, comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, made this observation while revisiting maintenance granted by a family court to a wife during divorce proceedings.

Maintenance Aligned with Earning Capacity: The bench asserted that a spouse with reasonable earning potential, opting for unemployment without adequate justification, should not shift the responsibility of expenses entirely onto the other party. The court highlighted that the computation of maintenance need not be precise but aimed at providing relief to the financially disadvantaged spouse during divorce proceedings.

Gender-Neutral Provisions Under Hindu Marriage Act: The court underscored the gender-neutral nature of maintenance provisions during the pendency of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA encompass rights, liabilities, and obligations of both spouses during divorce proceedings.

Case Background and Court’s Decision: The case in question involved a husband challenging an order to pay ₹30,000 monthly to his wife during the divorce proceedings. The husband’s counsel argued that the initial amount was set at ₹21,000 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act but was later increased to ₹30,000 in HMA proceedings.

The court considered the husband’s low income, familial responsibilities, and loan obligations. Analyzing the wife’s earning capacity, the court noted her educational background and questioned her voluntary choice of social work over gainful employment. Consequently, the court reduced the interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹21,000 but allowed for an annual automatic enhancement of ₹1,500 to account for inflation.

Balancing Financial Realities: The court’s decision aimed to strike a balance between the husband’s financial constraints, familial duties, and the wife’s capacity to contribute. It emphasized the importance of a fair distribution of financial responsibilities during divorce proceedings.

Re-reported from the article originally published in The Bar and Bench