The Delhi High Court has observed law doesn't
promote idling and said qualified women with an earning capacity shouldn't
claim interim maintenance from their husbands.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh on March 19 said Section
125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the CrPC carried
the legislative intent to maintain equality among the spouses and provide
protection to the wives, children and parents, but didn't promote
"idleness".
The order, therefore, dismissed a woman's plea
against a trial court order denying her interim maintenance from her estranged
husband.
"A well-educated wife, with experience in a
suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from
her husband. Therefore, interim maintenance is being discouraged in the present
case as this court can see potential in the petitioner to earn and make good of
her education," Justice Singh said.
The court, however, encouraged her to actively look
for a job to become self-sufficient saying she had a wide exposure and was
aware of the worldly affairs unlike other uneducated women, who were completely
dependent on their spouses for basic sustenance.
The couple married in December 2019 and left for
Singapore.
The woman alleged owing to the cruelties meted out
to her by the estranged husband and his family members, she returned to India
in February 2021.
She claimed to have sold her jewellery to return to
India and due to the financial hardships, she started residing with her
maternal uncle.
In June 2021, she filed a petition seeking
maintenance from her husband.
The plea was rejected by the trial court following
which she moved the high court.
The woman claimed the trial court erred in rejecting
her plea for maintenance as she was unemployed and had no independent source of
income whereas her husband earned handsomely and led an affluent lifestyle.
The man opposed the plea saying it was an abuse of
law as the woman was highly educated and capable of earning. He said the woman
couldn't claim maintenance merely on the grounds of unemployment.
Refusing to grant any relief to the woman, the high
court said it was unable to comprehend why, despite being able-bodied and well
qualified, she chose to remain idle since her return to India.
The court observed the woman had a master's degree
from Australia and was earning well in Dubai before her marriage.
Agreeing with the trial court, the high court said
the woman claimed she couldn't sit idle and was trying to find a job, but
neither did she place any evidence to support her claim nor resume her business
activities.
"Mere assertion of job-seeking, without
corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts of self
sufficiency," it added.
Considering certain conversations between the woman
and her mother, the court said they showed the "ex facie malafides"
on her part to seek maintenance.