Highly Qualified And Earning Wife Not Disclosing Her True Income Won't Be Entitled To Maintenance From Husband: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income.

While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife’s application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said:

“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.”

The court added, “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 that she had been working even after the marriage. In her appeal, the wife sought interim maintenance of Rs.35,000 per month from the husband, in addition to litigation expenses of Rs.55,000.

Dismissing her appeal, the bench noted that the wife was M. Phil at the time of her marriage and had completed Ph.D (Management) with professional qualification in Computers, whereas the husband was a simple graduate. The court said that not only was the wife highly qualified but she had been working even at the time of her marriage.

“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 bench said.

Furthermore, the court said that there is no doubt a difference between “capacity” and “actual earning”, but it was not a case where the wife had only the capacity but was also working.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 820

Click Here To Read Order