Summary:
The Delhi High Court denied interim maintenance to a well-educated wife who deliberately remained unemployed to extract money from her husband. The court exposed the wife’s WhatsApp chats, where she plotted to stay jobless to secure alimony, proving her bad intent. Despite having a Master’s degree from Australia, prior work experience at KPMG Dubai, and a business, she demanded maintenance instead of making efforts to earn. The court ruled that marriage is not a lifelong financial burden for men, and a capable wife cannot exploit maintenance laws to sit idle while expecting free money.
Facts of the Case:
- Petitioner (Wife): Megha Khetrapal
- Respondent (Husband): Rajat Kapoor
- Marriage Date: December 11, 2019
- Separation Date: February 20, 2021
- Legal Dispute:
- Wife alleged cruelty and financial abandonment.
- Claimed the husband revoked her spousal visa in Singapore, leaving her stranded.
- Sought interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Family Court dismissed the maintenance plea.
- Wife challenged the order in Delhi High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved:
- Section 125(1) CrPC – Grants maintenance to wives who cannot maintain themselves.
- Section 125(4) CrPC – Denies maintenance if the wife voluntarily refuses to earn despite being capable.
- Precedents Cited:
- Rajnish v. Neha (2021) – Husband must disclose financial assets, but maintenance depends on the wife’s ability to earn.
- Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) – “Capable of earning” and “actually earning” are different, but a woman cannot remain unemployed just to claim maintenance.
- Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000) – A well-qualified wife cannot sit idle and expect lifelong financial support.
Arguments:
Wife’s Arguments (Rejected by Court):
- Claimed she was financially dependent and had no means to survive.
- Alleged that her husband, earning ₹27 lakh per month in Singapore, abandoned her.
- Argued that despite being “capable of earning,” she was not “actually earning” and thus entitled to maintenance.
- Challenged the authenticity of WhatsApp chats presented by the husband, where she discussed avoiding employment to secure alimony.
Husband’s Arguments (Upheld by Court):
- Wife was highly qualified (Master’s in International Business from Australia).
- She had prior work experience (KPMG Dubai, HR Manager, and business in artificial jewelry).
- WhatsApp chats showed her intent to stay unemployed to maximize alimony claims.
- Husband had lost his job and provided proof of unemployment.
Court’s Observations – No Free Rides for Educated Wives!
A Qualified Woman Cannot Demand Maintenance While Choosing Unemployment
- The wife had educational qualifications and prior job experience but refused to work.
- Maintenance is for genuine financial need, not an excuse for laziness!
Intentional Unemployment = No Maintenance
- The wife’s own WhatsApp chats exposed her plan to remain jobless for alimony.
- The court cannot reward such deliberate idleness.
Husband’s Unemployment Considered
- The husband lost his job and provided documentary proof.
- A man without income cannot be forced to pay maintenance.
Law Should Not Promote Financial Dependence
- Section 125 CrPC is meant for support, not exploitation.
- Educated women must make efforts to sustain themselves.
Conclusion – A Landmark Ruling Against Maintenance Misuse!
- Delhi High Court dismissed the wife’s maintenance plea.
- Upheld Family Court’s ruling that educated, employable women cannot misuse maintenance laws.
- Sent a strong message that marriage is not a lifelong financial burden for men!
Comments from the author of this website
No More Financial Slavery for Men!
This judgment shatters the false narrative that every woman is a helpless victim. Why should a highly educated, financially capable woman be allowed to exploit the system while men are forced into financial servitude? The wife’s own WhatsApp chats exposed her deceit, proving she had no real need for support—only a plan to extort money. Yet, countless men are still trapped in a broken system, where their hard-earned money is drained by ex-wives who refuse to work. Maintenance is for genuine need, not a free paycheck for life! It’s time courts stop rewarding laziness and start holding false claimants accountable.
No work, no maintenance!
No proof, no case!
Men deserve financial justice, not lifelong punishment for a failed marriage!
Read Complete Judgement Here