The Delhi High Court directed a husband earning approx. ₹10 lakhs per month to pay ₹2 lakhs per month as pendente lite maintenance to his wife and daughter. The Court held that merely having qualifications or a past job record is not a ground to deny maintenance when the wife has been primarily engaged in childcare.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The parties married in 2009 and had a daughter in 2011.
- The wife worked for about 3.5 years before marriage and later for some time in Singapore.
- After the child’s birth, she returned to India and primarily took care of the child.
- The husband, employed in Singapore, earned around ₹10 lakhs per month.
- The Family Court earlier declined maintenance to the wife, holding that she was capable of working, but granted ₹25,000 per month for the child.
- The wife appealed.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Maintenance pendente lite (maintenance during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings).
Arguments of the Appellant (Wife)
- She sacrificed her career to take care of the child.
- Denying her maintenance merely because of her educational qualifications was unjust.
- Family Court ignored her contribution as a primary caregiver.
Arguments of the Respondent (Husband)
- Wife had worked both before and after marriage, including in Singapore.
- She applied for maintenance only after he filed a divorce petition, showing mala fide intent.
- With her qualifications, she was capable of supporting herself.
Court’s Observations
- Taking care of a young child is a significant responsibility, and the wife had been doing so single-handedly.
- No evidence was produced to show she refused work opportunities or resigned from a well-paying job.
- Filing a maintenance application after the husband’s divorce petition cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny relief.
- Considering the husband’s high income, denying her maintenance was not justified.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Court directed the husband to pay ₹2 lakhs per month as pendente lite maintenance—covering both the wife and the child—with effect from the date of the application.
Comments from the author of this website
Reading this order feels like déjà vu for countless men in similar situations. Here we have a well-qualified woman with proven work experience and international exposure, still being treated by the court as if she were completely dependent. The Family Court rightly pointed out her capability to work, but the High Court brushed it aside, prioritising childcare as if fathers are irrelevant in raising children.
This creates a dangerous precedent where men’s earnings become the default solution to every marital breakdown, regardless of the wife’s education, skills, or past employment. The fact that the husband was earning well became the deciding factor, while the wife’s responsibility to contribute financially was overlooked.
There is also the troubling aspect that the wife applied for maintenance only after the divorce petition was filed. Instead of questioning this timing more strongly, the Court excused it—sending a signal that maintenance can be used as a weapon once the marriage sours.
As a man, this is disheartening. It feels like the system assumes that no matter what qualifications or career opportunities a woman has, the man must always foot the bill. Such judgments discourage equality and accountability in marriages. Maintenance should be about genuine need, not lifestyle compensation or tactical litigation.
Final Thoughts
While the Court aimed to secure financial support for the wife and child, the judgment again reflects how men are treated as financial providers first and human beings later. True equality means recognising that educated, capable women must also share responsibility for their lives after separation. Without this balance, maintenance laws will continue to be misused, leaving men feeling exploited and unheard.
Read Complete Judgement Here