S. 24 HMA | No Maintenance If Qualified Wife Refrains From Working Just To Burden Husband: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act [Maintenance Pendente Lite] if a qualified wife capable of earning, refrains from working, only to impose a 'burden' upon her husband.
A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran made this observation while dismissing a first appeal filed by the wife, a Gynaecologist by profession, challenging an order of the Family Court.
The Family Court in Prayagraj had rejected her plea u/s Section 24 HMA seeking interim maintenance from the Neurosurgeon Husband. The Court, however, had allowed the children's claim under Section 26 HMA. In the impugned order, it was noted that, as per the ITRs, she earns more than Rs. 31 lakhs per annum.
Before the HC, she claimed she is not presently not working as she was removed from the hospital after filing of the case by the respondent-husband.
It was her further case that she is entitled to her husband's support to ensure she can maintain the same standard of living she enjoyed before the separation.
On the other hand, the husband argued that he has been paying the maintenance amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month to the children and since his wife is a trained specialized Gynecologist, she can herself earn more than him in a State like Uttar Pradesh.
It was further submitted that the trial court had dismissed her application because she is better able to maintain herself due to her qualifications.
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court considered her qualifications and the fact that she is a trained Gynaecologist to observe that she is capable of earning handsomely in her line of expertise.
"Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24", the bench remarked.
Therefore, having gone through the order passed by the Family court, the bench found that the impugned order cannot be faulted. Appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
Case : Dr Garima Dubey And 3 Others vs. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 253
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 253