The Delhi High Court held that a homemaker cannot be termed idle merely for being educated and awarded ₹90,000 per month as interim maintenance. It clarified that earning potential is not equal to actual income.
Why is earning capacity strictly examined for husbands, but rarely applied with the same standard to wives in maintenance cases?
Wife Earning Not Enough to Deny Maintenance: The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, held that merely describing a wife as “educated” or “capable of earning” is not enough to deny her maintenance. The case revolved around interim maintenance and the correct assessment of the husband’s income.
Earlier, maintenance had been refused on the reasoning:
“Thus, the intention of the legislation is never to encourage willful unemployment and unnecessary dependence on the husband.”
It was also observed:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant is able-bodied and well educated however, she has chosen not to seek employment and instead be a dependent on her husband.”
However, the High Court found that the transactions treated as income were actually transfers made by the husband for household expenses, and there was no proof of independent earnings. The Family Court had earlier noted: “Disputed facts related to income of the parties cannot be decided at this stage.” and clarified:
“Merely on the basis of the photograph as makeup artist it cannot be said that she is able to maintain herself.”
Justice Sharma made important observations on social realities, stating that in many Indian households, women leave employment after marriage, and husbands cannot later deny support on the grounds that the wife should now earn. The Court also noted that non-employment does not mean idleness and that domestic contribution has economic value.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the interim maintenance of ₹50,000 for the wife and ₹40,000 for the child, directing payment from the date of the application and the clearance of arrears within six months. The Court emphasised that the capacity to earn cannot replace proof of actual income.
The case reflects the harsh reality many husbands face in matrimonial litigation. Even when financial transfers are made voluntarily and multiple proceedings run simultaneously, the earning spouse continues to shoulder mounting legal and monetary burdens.
The judgment highlights how prolonged litigation, overlapping maintenance claims, and strict disclosure scrutiny often place men in a position where they must fund parallel disputes while defending themselves, reinforcing the growing concern about the financial vulnerability of husbands during matrimonial conflicts.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How it applied in this case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Provides maintenance to spouse and child to prevent destitution | Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹50,000 to wife and ₹40,000 to child |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Section 12) | Allows aggrieved person to seek relief including monetary support | Wife filed DV complaint seeking protection and maintenance |
| PWDV Act (Section 23) | Empowers Magistrate to grant interim monetary relief | Magistrate awarded interim maintenance only to child initially |
| PWDV Act (Section 29) | Provides appeal against Magistrate’s order | Wife filed appeal challenging denial of maintenance |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (SC guidelines) | Standardised disclosure of income and assets in maintenance matters | Appellate Court relied on non-filing of 3-year bank statements to deny maintenance |
| Section 125 CrPC & PWDV Act (parallel jurisdiction principle) | Maintenance can be claimed under multiple statutes with adjustment | High Court harmonised amounts to avoid duplication |
Case Details
- Case Title: Husband vs Wife & connected matters
- Petitions: CRL.REV.P. 718/2024, CRL.REV.P. 926/2024, CRL.REV.P. (MAT.) 45/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1380
- Dates:
- Judgment reserved on: 19.11.2025
- Judgment pronounced on: 16.02.2026
- Judgment uploaded on: 19.02.2026
- Counsels
- For Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate, and Mr. Ishaan Seth, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Atul Chaubey, Advocate, and Mr. Chandan Sharma, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Courts are increasingly scrutinising financial disclosures, meaning husbands must maintain complete records, as even voluntary transfers can be interpreted during maintenance litigation.
- Parallel proceedings under different laws can significantly increase financial exposure, forcing men to defend multiple cases while facing overlapping maintenance liabilities.
- In maintenance determinations, earning capacity is often assessed primarily against husbands rather than applied uniformly to both spouses, which can lead to disproportionate financial pressure on men.
- Prolonged matrimonial litigation can create economic vulnerability for men, as legal costs, maintenance orders, and arrears obligations accumulate simultaneously.
- The case highlights the urgent need for a balanced assessment of dependency claims and a realistic evaluation of both parties’ financial responsibilities to prevent misuse and ensure fairness.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.