In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of interim maintenance to a woman who, despite being highly educated, remained unemployed. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh dismissed the revision petition against the order of the Family Court, South District, Saket, which had denied interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)].
Case Background
The petitioner married the respondent on December 11, 2019. The couple relocated abroad soon after. However, marital discord led to her return to India on February 20, 2021. She alleged that her spouse subjected her to cruelty and stranded her by revoking her spousal visa, forcing her to sell her jewelry to return home. Subsequently, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim relief. The Family Court, however, denied her request for interim maintenance on November 5, 2022, prompting the present revision petition.
Legal Issues
The case raised several important legal questions regarding maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, including:
- Entitlement to Maintenance: Whether an educated and able-bodied spouse, who is capable of earning, can claim interim maintenance.
- Burden of Proof: The extent to which the burden lies on the petitioner to prove financial incapacity and efforts to secure employment.
- Moral and Legal Obligation: Whether a husband is obligated to provide maintenance when the wife has the potential to earn but chooses not to work.
- Admissibility of Digital Evidence: The validity of WhatsApp chats as evidence to establish intent behind seeking maintenance.
- Impact of Concealment of Facts: Whether non-disclosure of educational qualifications and prior employment history affects the credibility of the petitioner’s claim.
Legal Arguments
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner argued that the Family Court erred in denying her interim maintenance, disregarding her financial hardships and inability to secure employment. She contended that:
- She had never been financially independent before marriage.
- She had been unemployed since her return to India.
- The respondent was earning approximately ₹27.22 lakh per month and had substantial financial resources.
- Even if the respondent had lost his job, he was still legally and morally bound to provide maintenance.
- The Family Court wrongly relied on her LinkedIn profile to assume she was earning.
Respondent’s Defense
The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that:
- The petitioner was highly qualified, holding a Master’s in International Business from a reputed foreign university.
- She had previously worked in a top financial firm and later ran her own artificial jewelry business.
- WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and her mother revealed an intention to deliberately remain unemployed to claim higher maintenance.
- He had lost his job and was unable to provide maintenance at the demanded rate of ₹3.25 lakh per month.
Observations of the Court
After examining the evidence, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made strong observations:
- Deliberate Unemployment: The court emphasized that merely being “capable of earning” is different from actually earning, but in this case, there was prima facie evidence that the petitioner deliberately chose to remain unemployed. The court relied on a WhatsApp conversation where her mother advised that taking a job could affect her alimony claims.
- Educational and Professional Qualifications: Noting that the petitioner had concealed details of her educational and professional background in her affidavit, the court held that a highly qualified individual should not remain unemployed solely to claim maintenance.
- Legal Precedents: The court referenced multiple judgments, including Gurpreet Dhariwal v. Amit Jain (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1066), where interim maintenance was denied to an educated woman capable of earning. It also cited Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801, emphasizing that maintenance should not be used as a financial weapon.
- Duty to Seek Employment: The court remarked, “Qualified wives, having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, should not set up a claim for interim maintenance.” It reiterated that Section 125 CrPC aims to provide relief to those genuinely unable to sustain themselves, not those unwilling to work despite qualifications.
- Respondent’s Financial Condition: Since the respondent had submitted his termination letter as evidence of unemployment, the court found no grounds to impose an immediate maintenance obligation on him.
Decision
In light of these observations, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the petition. Justice Singh encouraged the petitioner to seek employment, given her qualifications and past experience, rather than relying on maintenance as a financial crutch. The ruling reaffirms the principle that maintenance laws should support genuine financial need, not facilitate undue financial dependency.
