Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Jul 28: In a significant reaffirmation of spousal support rights, the Delhi High Court has ruled that an unemployed wife is entitled to financial maintenance from her husband—even if she holds strong academic credentials—until she secures stable income or employment.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court’s order requiring the husband to pay Rs 1 lakh per month as ad-interim maintenance to his wife, rejecting his plea that her qualifications disqualified her from receiving support.

The court made it clear that educational background alone cannot negate a woman’s right to maintenance if she is currently not earning.

“Until she finds a job or generates income independently, the husband is obligated to provide for her,” the court stated.

The husband, an Australian citizen, argued that his wife was a qualified HR professional capable of earning on her own. He claimed that she had voluntarily chosen unemployment and had even maintained a lavish lifestyle without his support. Additionally, he said that the lower court’s decision had not fully considered his own financial struggles, which include dependence on family loans and support from friends and his mother to run his business in Australia.

In response, the wife’s counsel argued that she had left her job after marriage and had since been residing with her parents. Simply being well-qualified, they stressed, should not be equated with financial independence — especially when re-entering the workforce takes time and effort.

The High Court agreed with the wife’s position, noting that there was no evidence she had willfully avoided employment.

“The fact that she may be employable does not change the reality that she is not employed at present,” the court observed.

Importantly, Justice Krishna clarified that the maintenance awarded was ad-interim — a temporary arrangement to ensure immediate support until a final determination is made based on comprehensive financial disclosures by both parties.

Addressing the husband’s argument that such an order might encourage dependency, the court stated:

“Labeling maintenance as a reward for idleness is both premature and unfounded, particularly when the purpose of the order is temporary relief during strained matrimonial circumstances.”

Reinforcing the view that maintenance rights are not contingent on academic degrees, the High Court ultimately dismissed the husband’s appeal, allowing the family court’s directive to stand.