The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed an appeal filed by a wife, an M.D. Gynecologist, seeking maintenance from her husband, a Neurosurgeon. The Court observed that where a qualified person is capable of earning through their expertise but refrains from doing so to burden the spouse, maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955, can be denied.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran was hearing a First Appeal filed by the wife and her three children against an order of the trial court which had partially rejected their maintenance application.
Background
The case arose from a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband. Both parties are residents of Prayagraj and are highly qualified medical professionals—the appellant is a Gynecologist (M.D.) and the respondent is a Neurosurgeon. They have three children (two daughters and a son).
The appellants challenged an order dated April 7, 2025, passed by the trial court. While the trial court allowed the application under Section 26 of the HMA for the maintenance of the children (with the husband paying ₹60,000 per month), it dismissed the wife’s application for pendente lite maintenance under Section 24.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that she was currently not working as she had been removed from the hospital following the filing of the divorce case by her husband. It was further contended that she is entitled to be supported by the respondent to maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed prior to their separation.
Conversely, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the husband has been faithfully paying the maintenance for the children. He argued that the appellant is a trained specialized Gynecologist capable of earning more than the respondent. He pointed out that the trial court dismissed her claim specifically because her qualifications rendered her more than capable of maintaining herself.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the appellant is a post-graduate with a degree in M.D. (Gynecology). Regarding the reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai (2008 AIR SC 530), the Bench distinguished the facts, noting that in the cited case, the wife was unemployed and the husband had sufficient means.
In the present case, however, the Court found the circumstances to be different. The Bench observed:
“Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24.”
The Court further referred to the trial court’s findings, which showed that the appellant’s Income Tax Returns (ITRs) reflected an annual earning of more than ₹31 lakhs.
Decision
Rejecting the contention that the appellant is “presently not working,” the High Court held that she is “capable of earning handsomely in her line of expertise.” Consequently, the Court found no fault in the trial court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dr Garima Dubey And 3 Others v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey
- Case No.: FIRST APPEAL No. 594 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran
- Date: April 21, 2026
