Whether a well-educated woman is entitled to maintenance or not?

In a very recent case (MAT.APP.(F.C) 248/2019, dated 12.09.2023, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that a well-educated woman who has worked in the past and did not disclose her income is not entitled to any maintenance. In this very case, while rejecting the appeal of the estranged wife, the court has observed “in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance. Pertinently, the claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal which is hereby dismissed.”

In the above judgment, there are two important observations. First, the appellant was highly qualified and had earning capacity. Second, she has not disclosed her true income from her previous employment. Based on these observations, the High Court has declined to grant any maintenance to the appellant and dismissed her appeal.

FACT OF THE CASE:-

The appellant/ wife had got married to the respondent/ husband on 21.04.2014, but on account of incompatibility and differences, they were not able to continue in their matrimonial relationship leading to the filing of a Divorce Petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) by the respondent/husband. The appellant was working till then, but after the filing of the Divorce Petition, she resigned from her job on 22.05.2015. The matter was amicably settled and the Divorce Petition was withdrawn on 06.02.2016. However, a police complaint was filed by the appellant on 06.05.2016 thereby reflecting that the parties were unable to settle in their matrimonial relationship. The Respondent filed the second Divorce Petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 against the appellant on 24.05.2016. During the trial, the appellant filed an application under Section 24 of HMA which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2018. Aggrieved an appeal was preferred before this Court and the matter was remanded back for re-adjudication vide Order dated 28.03.2019. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court considered the matter afresh and observing the qualifications of the appellant and also that she had been working even after the marriage, declined to grant her any pendent lite maintenance vide Order dated 03.09.2019. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ wife who has sought interim

Maintenance @ Rs.35,000/- per month in addition to litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

CASE LAW RELIED UPON:-

Similar facts as in hand were considered in the case of Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 to observe that Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to either spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts. However, the law does not expect persons engaged in legal battles to remain idle solely with the objective of squeezing out money from the opposite party. Section 24 of HMA is not meant to create an Army of idle people waiting for a dole to be awarded by the other spouse. In the said case finding that the lady was very well qualified, declined to grant any maintenance. Likewise, in the case of Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta 2016 (234) DLT 693, the Division Bench of this Court deprecated the claim of maintenance under Section 24 of HMA by a well-qualified spouse having an earning capacity.

 MAINTENANCE LAWS:- 

In the matrimonial litigations between the husband and wife, an important case is the maintenance case in which the estranged wife is mainly filing a maintenance case against the husband. The maintenance petition can be filed u/s 125 Cr. P.C., under the Domestic Violence (D.V.) Act and under section 24 of HMA if any proceeding under HMA such as a divorce case, Restitution Petition, or Petition for Judicial separation, etc.) is pending in any court between the same party. Nowadays the wives are almost well educated and in some cases, they are working/employed and earning equally as husbands. But when matrimonial disputes arise between the party and maintenance litigation comes in the court, the basic question is being asked from the lawyers as to how she can file the petition for maintenance because she is well qualified and there is a capacity to earn and in view of the definition of Cr.P.C.125, she is not entitled to any maintenance. For better understanding, we may refer to the definition of section 125 Cr.P.C. which is as follows:-

Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance until she attains her majority if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(a) " minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority;

(b) " wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such The magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just grounds for his wife's refusal to live with him.

(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

So as per the definition of 125 Cr. P.C vide Sec.125 (1) (a) the wife who is unable to maintain herself is not entitled to maintenance. But the question here is the wife who is healthy and well educated, comes under the terms of unable to maintain herself?

In this regard, we may refer few judgments of the court to understand the term “unable to maintain herself” and entitlement for maintenance:-

SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURTS IN OTHER MAINTENANCE CASES:-

1. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Revision No.1290 of 1999 decided on 24.03.2000.

In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that well-qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for purpose of finding a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged. It is further held that a lady, who is fighting matrimonial litigation filed for Divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during the pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant to create an army of idle people who would be sitting idle waiting for a "dole" to be awarded by her husband who has a grievance against her and who has gone to court to seek relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband is well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a "dole" to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolent idles so also does not want an army of self-made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintaining himself or herself, and at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criterion is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but for away after an emerging of litigation. If such an army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlements because he would be reaping the nature of pendente lite alimony, and to prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be the aim or goal of section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has been enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard-earned money by toiling working hours.

2. Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermet Juneja & Anr. 2012 [4] JCC 237.

In this case, it was held that if the wife was working in the past and resigned from the employment, she is not entitled to maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The question of whether the wife was forced to resign or she has resigned herself is a question to be considered by the court during the trial and also the question of whether the reason given by her for resigning was satisfactory or not. These are the questions to be gone into during evidence by the ld. Trial Court.

3. Vijay Kumar Vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal decided on 10.09.2008 in CM (M) ENo.539/2008 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that when the Income of both husband and wife are almost similar and both almost equally qualified, there is no justification to grant interim maintenance to the wife.

4. Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen SLP (Crl) 7924 of 2008 Supreme Court.

In this case, while reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.10000/- to Rs.5000/- granted by the lower court to the wife, the Supreme Court observed that " we cannot also shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is not employed or at least there is nothing on record to indicate that she is employed in any gainful work. However having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.

5. Omar Abdullah Vs. Payal Abdullah & Ors. 2018 (1) JCC 632.

In this case, the Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to decide first the maintainability of the petition filed by the wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the Maintainability of the petition under section 125 Cr. P.C. and the question of award of interim maintenance are inseparable. In Order to award interim maintenance, the court concerned shall first arrive at a finding of whether the husband neglected or refused to give maintenance to his wife and whether the wife was unable to maintain herself, then proceed with the case further.

6. Suman Bhasin Vs. Neeraj Bhasin CC No.316/3/2007 Dated 27.05.2015 MM, Saket District Court”

In this case, the Court came heavily and imposed a cost of Rs. One lac for filing a false Domestic Violence case against the husband and in-laws. The court in its judgment has observed that Domestic Violence law has been misused.

7. Manushree Vs. Sachin case no.26/2016, decided on 15.01.2019, ADJ Saket District Court N.Delhi

In this case, it was observed that the Court should not be allowed to be used to extort money, junk a woman’s maintenance plea, and impose a cost of Rs. One lac on the woman, saying the proceeding u/s 125 Cr. P.C. has filed only to blackmail the Husband.

So in view of the above judgments, it is now settled that a woman who is highly qualified and has the capability to earn is not entitled to maintenance. It is clarified here that in the maintenance cases, there are so many factors do decide the maintenance cases as such there is no straight jacket formula to be applied in all the cases and the decision of the court is based upon the facts and circumstances of each case.