Can’t Say That Granting Maintenance To Wife Despite Her Earning Capacity, Would Mean Breeding A Class Of Idle Women: Delhi High Court

The Revision Petition before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) on behalf of the Petitioner husband for setting aside the Order vide which ad-interim maintenance of Rs1 lakh per month had been granted to the Respondent wife.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “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 being 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.”

Advocate Shilpa Ohri represented the Petitioner while Advocate Kajal Chandra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The couple got married in the year 2022, but because of the matrimonial differences, they separated in the year 2023. The Respondent/wife filed a Petition under Section 144 BNSS seeking monthly maintenance. It was asserted that the wife is a highly qualified and accomplished individual with an extensive academic background and a strong professional trajectory. Professionally, 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.

The matter was adjourned before the Trial Court on account of it being pending before Mediation. The Respondent served one of her Bank Statements to the Petitioner after an inordinate delay, and she had not filed her entire Bank Account statement with the Income Affidavit. The husband showed an inclination towards an amicable resolution, but the wife insisted on an interim maintenance to be fixed. Thus, the impugned order of maintenance came to be passed.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the wife is highly qualified and has excellent skills in HR and may, with an effort, be able to get a job. However, there was nothing to show regarding her present employment. As per the Bench, it could not be said that she had intentionally left the job, considering that she had left the job when she shifted to Australia after her marriage. It was further noticed that the Petitioner residing in Australia is earning in Australian Dollars, though even Rs 1 lakh came to about AUD $1806.

The Bench further said, “It cannot be overlooked that the Order of maintenance dated 09.05.2025 is only ad-interim which implies that the interim maintenance Order shall be made after considering the affidavit of income, which has been filed subsequent to this Order and also by considering the financial capacity and responsibilities of both the parties, aside from their personal qualifications.”

Noting that the stage of considering the respective Income Affidavits is yet to come, the Bench clarified that this is only an ad-interim maintenance Order, which obviously would be subject to the interim maintenance that may be decided after considering the income affidavits, documents, etc. and contentions of the parties.

Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5729)

Appearacne

Petitioner: Advocates Shilpa Ohri, Sanyam Khetarpal, Prakriti Anand

Respondent: Advocates Kajal Chandra, Hatneimawi

Click here to read/download Order