Jahanvi Agarwal
According to the Delhi High Court, a wife who is highly qualified and has continued working after marriage but does not reveal her genuine income is not entitled to maintenance from the husband.
A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld a family court ruling that denied a wife’s request for support under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and stated the following:
“We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance. Pertinently, the claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal which is hereby dismissed.”
The family court had declined to grant any pendent lite maintenance to the wife in view of his qualifications and the fact that she had been working after the marriage. In her appeal, the wife demanded that the husband pay her interim maintenance of Rs. 35,000 per month as well as Rs. 55,000 for litigation expenses.
The bench dismissed the woman’s appeal after observing that the wife was an M. Phil. at the time of her marriage and had earned a Ph. D. (Management) with professional qualification in computers, whereas the husband was a simple graduate. The woman was not only highly qualified but was also working at the time of her marriage, according to the court.
The Bench stated that:
“We, on the facts as narrated above, agree with the conclusions of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts that the appellant not only is a highly qualified lady, but has been working even at the time of her marriage and thereafter. The documents and the admissions made by the appellant clearly lead to an irresistible conclusion that she is employed in the office of the M.P.”
The court further stated that although there is certainly a distinction between “capacity” and “actual earning,” this case did not involve a situation where the wife only had capacity but did not work.
Case Name: X v. Y
Diary Number: 248/2019
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna