Non-Earning Spouse Cannot Be Treated As “Idle”; Domestic Labour Must Be Recognised While Deciding Maintenance: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that the assumption that a homemaker is idle reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution, and that unpaid household labour must be given due weight while adjudicating maintenance claims.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that describing a non-earning spouse as “idle” reflects a flawed understanding of domestic contribution and cannot be a valid ground to deny maintenance where no actual income is established.
The Court was hearing three connected revision petitions arising from matrimonial disputes concerning the grant and denial of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
A Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while deciding the petitions, observed that “the assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution… These responsibilities do not appear in bank statements or generate taxable income, yet they form the invisible structure on which many families function.”
The Bench further stressed that “the law must recognise not only financial earnings but also the economic value of the contribution of the wife within the home and domestic relationship during the subsistence of the marriage”.
Advocates Deepak Tyagi and Ishaan Seth appeared for the husband, while Advocate Atul Chaubey appeared for the wife.
Background
The parties were married in 2012 and resided together until 2020, after which disputes arose, and the husband returned abroad, leaving the wife and minor child in India.
The wife then initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance and also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act.
The Magistrate granted maintenance to the child but declined interim maintenance to the wife, holding that she was educated and capable of earning. The appellate court enhanced maintenance for the child but again denied maintenance to the wife on the grounds of incomplete financial disclosure.
Separately, the Family Court granted interim maintenance to both wife and child. These orders were challenged before the High Court by both parties through cross-petitions.
Court’s Observation
The High Court first examined whether the wife had any independent source of income and whether she was disentitled to maintenance on account of alleged earning capacity. It reiterated that there is a clear distinction between “capacity to earn” and “actual earnings”, and mere capability cannot justify the denial of maintenance in the absence of proof of income.
The Court held that the Magistrate’s reliance on bank entries to infer income was misplaced, noting that the transactions reflected transfers made by the husband himself towards household expenses. It further observed that loans received from family members could not be treated as proof of financial independence, since such assistance is often extended in matrimonial distress without regard to repayment capacity.
Addressing the broader social context, the Court noted that women frequently discontinue employment after marriage due to familial expectations, relocation, or childcare responsibilities, and cannot later be faulted for not earning after separation.
The Bench emphasised the practical barriers to re-entry into the workforce after long breaks, including skill obsolescence, weakened professional networks, and age-related disadvantages.
Rejecting the argument that the wife was “idle,” the Court held: “Where one spouse earns income in the marketplace, and the other sustains the domestic sphere, the economic stability of the household is the result of combined, though differently manifested, contributions.”
The Court stressed that domestic labour performed by a homemaker enables the earning spouse to function effectively and must be recognised while adjudicating maintenance claims.
On quantum, the Court found that the husband, a petroleum engineer employed abroad, was earning a substantial income and possessed significant financial resources, including savings and fixed deposits. Voluntary financial liabilities such as EMIs and loans could not be used to dilute the statutory obligation to maintain spouse and child.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the denial of maintenance to the wife by the Magistrate and the appellate court was erroneous and unsustainable. It upheld the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to the wife and ₹40,000 per month to the minor child, directing that the same amounts would apply in proceedings under the PWDV Act as well, subject to adjustment across parallel proceedings.
The husband was directed to clear arrears within six months, and all petitions were disposed of.
Cause Title: Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray & Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1380)
Appearances
Petitioner: Deepak Tyagi, Ishaan Seth, Advocates
Respondent: Atul Chaubey, Chandan Sharma, Advocates