Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
Professionally Qualified Wife Can Be Directed To Seek Work, But Maintenance Won't Automatically Cease: Delhi High Court
|The Court modified the interim maintenance under the Dometic Violence Act for former Air India pilot following job loss.
The Delhi High Court has held that while a court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 possesses the discretion to direct a professionally qualified spouse to make bona fide efforts toward securing employment, a mere capacity to earn cannot be treated as actual income to deny or automatically terminate interim maintenance.
Adjudicating cross-revision petitions arising from maintenance orders passed in a domestic violence complaint, the Court partially relieved a former Air India pilot whose employment was terminated, reducing his interim maintenance obligation to ₹15,000 per month from the date he approached the High Court, while rejecting the wife's plea for enhancement to ₹3,38,500 per month.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Madhu Jain observed, “Interim maintenance is provisional in nature. The Court may grant it for a specified period or direct its reconsideration after a reasonable interval. While doing so, the Court may take into account the age, qualifications, previous employment, health, family responsibilities and present employability of the spouse claiming maintenance. A professionally qualified spouse may, therefore, be required to make bona fide efforts towards securing suitable employment. Such a direction is neither beyond the jurisdiction nor outside the discretion of the Court. However, the capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings”.
“…the learned Appellate Court did not direct automatic cessation of maintenance upon the expiry of one year. It required the wife to make genuine efforts to obtain employment and directed the learned MM to reconsider the matter thereafter. The direction is within the jurisdiction of the learned Appellate Court and does not call for interference. It is, however, clarified that the wife cannot be compelled to secure employment within the stipulated period. Her obligation is confined to making bona fide and reasonable efforts. Any reconsideration of maintenance shall depend upon her actual employment and income, the efforts made by her, her reasonable needs, the financial capacity and liabilities of the husband and the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time. Mere expiry of one year shall not result in automatic cessation of maintenance”, the Bench noted.
Advocate Ajit Kumar appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Isha Khanna appeared as amicus curiae.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on July 8, 2010, and a son was born from the wedlock, who currently resides with and is maintained by the husband. The parties have been living separately since January 2019. On January 11, 2019, the wife, instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act along with an application under Section 23 seeking interim maintenance.
By order dated September 7, 2020, the Metropolitan Magistrate awarded interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000 per month to the wife, assessing the husband's monthly income in the range of ₹4–5 lakh based on bank credits and Form-16 records.
On October 1, 2021, the Principal District and Sessions Judge upheld the quantum but directed the wife, who holds a B.Tech degree, to seek employment within one year, directing the trial court to review maintenance thereafter. Both parties challenged this order before the High Court in cross-revisions. During the pendency of the revisions, the husband was taken off flying duties, lost his employment with Air India, and successfully secured a downward modification to ₹15,000 per month under Section 25(2) of the DV Act effective May 20, 2022.
The High Court observed that interim maintenance orders are founded upon a prima facie assessment and should not be disturbed unless suffering from patent illegality. While the initial award of ₹1,00,000 per month was justified for the period when the husband received substantial flying remuneration, his subsequent job loss constituted a material alteration in circumstances that could not be ignored from the date he filed his revision petition on November 8, 2021.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the husband's revision petition and modified the impugned orders, directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000 per month from January 11, 2019 to November 7, 2021, and ₹15,000 per month from November 8, 2021 to May 19, 2022.
From May 20, 2022 onwards, the parties shall continue to be governed by the Section 25(2) order fixing maintenance at ₹15,000 per month. The wife's cross-revision seeking enhancement was dismissed, and the direction requiring her to seek employment was upheld with the clarification that maintenance shall not cease automatically upon the expiry of one year.
Cause Title: D v. S (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6090)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ajit Kumar and Shivam Singh, Advocates.
Respondent: Isha Khanna (Amicus Curiae), Ruchika Malik and Shivam Parashar, Advocates.