The Delhi High Court has held that a homemaker’s unpaid domestic labour cannot be ignored while deciding maintenance and rejected the notion that a non-earning wife is “idle” or deliberately dependent. The court awarded ₹50,000 as interim maintenance to an estranged wife in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said equating non-employment with idleness reflects a misunderstanding of the economic value of domestic work and would lead to unjust outcomes in maintenance cases.
The parties married in 2012 and had a minor son. The wife alleged that she and the child were deserted by the husband in 2020.
A magisterial court had declined interim maintenance on the ground that the wife was well-educated, able-bodied, and capable of earning. The appellate court also denied relief.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife could not remain “idle” and seek maintenance when she had the capacity to work, adding that he was already bearing the educational expenses of their child.
The High Court rejected the premise that a non-earning spouse is idle, observing:
“The assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contributions. To describe non-employment as idleness is easy; to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult.”
The court emphasised that a homemaker’s work enables the earning spouse to function effectively and that ignoring such contribution while adjudicating maintenance would be “unrealistic and unjust.”
It further held that:
“A homemaker does not sit idle; she performs labour that enables the earning spouse to function effectively.”
The court clarified that the mere capacity to earn cannot be a ground to deny maintenance. It noted that settled law distinguishes between the ability to work and actual income.
While encouraging women who are willing to work, the court said denying maintenance solely because a wife is capable of employment is a flawed approach.
The judgment also recognised that many women step away from their careers after marriage due to family responsibilities and cannot later re-enter the workforce at the same professional level or salary.
The court observed that in Indian society women are often expected to leave employment after marriage, but in matrimonial disputes husbands frequently take the contrary stand to resist maintenance by labelling their wives as “well-qualified” and deliberately unemployed. Such a position, it said, cannot be encouraged, as it risks leaving a spouse who invested years in the family economically stranded.
It noted that managing a household, caring for children, and adjusting life around the earning spouse’s career are forms of work that may not generate taxable income but form the “invisible structure” on which families function.
Finding no material on record to show any past or present income of the wife, the court granted ₹50,000 as interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.
The High Court also remarked that maintenance proceedings often become “intensely adversarial” and rarely serve the long-term interests of the parties or their minor children.
It said mediation offers a more constructive path, as contested litigation tends to result in exaggerated expense claims by wives and understated income disclosures by husbands, making meaningful dialogue difficult.
The court thus underscored the need for a realistic and balanced assessment of the needs and capacities of both spouses while encouraging amicable resolution in matrimonial disputes.
