A Delhi court has ruled that a woman cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is educated. The court upheld a trial court order directing a husband to pay Rs 7,500 per month to his estranged wife and their minor daughter.
Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan dismissed an appeal filed by the husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The judge observed that “the capability to earn and actual earning are two different concepts.” The husband had failed to provide any “cogent material” to prove that his wife was earning sufficiently to maintain herself.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Pradeep Kumar challenging a 2025 trial court order that granted interim maintenance to Priya and the couple’s child. The dispute arose from allegations of dowry harassment, physical abuse, and neglect after the birth of their daughter.
Husband's Arguments
Kumar argued that the maintenance amount was excessive and based on an inflated assessment of his income. Claiming unemployment, he contended that the trial court failed to properly consider the circumstances. He alleged that the complaint was filed solely to drag him into a “false and frivolous case.”
Court's Observations
Rejecting the husband’s plea of unemployment, Judge Pradhan held that merely claiming lack of income does not absolve an “able-bodied” and educated man of his moral and legal duty to maintain his wife and child. The appellate court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s order granting monetary relief under the DV Act.
Taking note of the wife’s condition and the needs of the minor child, the court observed that “an aggrieved person cannot be rendered to lead a life of a destitute till completion of trial.” It clarified that the object of interim maintenance is to ensure that a dependent spouse is not reduced to “destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage,” and not to punish the other spouse.
Legal Principle Reaffirmed
The court underscored that a husband carries a “statutory obligation” to maintain his wife, minor children, and dependent parents who are unable to support themselves. This reaffirms the legal foundation behind the grant of interim maintenance.
The judgment emphasizes that education alone does not imply actual earning capacity, and courts must assess the real financial situation of the parties before denying maintenance.
