Unemployed Wife An ‘Idle Woman’? This Is What Delhi High Court Said In A Maintenance Case

“Are you working?” This is the question people typically ask to know whether a person earns money. For women, the answer is typically ‘no’, not because they are not working, but because they are not earning. In many cases, this non-working status is also construed as “sitting idle”. In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court firmly rejected the notion that a non-earning wife is an idle woman. 

Justice Swarana Kanta emphasised that managing a household and raising children is an essential form of labour that keeps the family unit running. The court observed that while the work is unacknowledged in terms of money, it provides the invisible structure upon which an earning spouse’s career is built. 

“A homemaker does not “sit idle”; she performs labour that enables the earning spouse to function effectively. To disregard this contribution while adjudicating claims of maintenance would be unrealistic and unjust,” the court said this in a maintenance case in a family dispute matter.

Case Background

The case involved Priti Ray (wife), and her husband (Rakesh Ray), an engineer working in Kuwait. Married in 2012, the couple lived in West Bengal and adopted a male child. In 2016, they shifted to Kuwait and lived there until returning to India during the pandemic in 2020. Allegedly, on August 18, 2020, the husband deserted the wife and their minor son and left for Kuwait. The wife filed a petition in 2021, towards which the Metropolitan Magistrate, in October 2022, awarded monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 to the minor child, but denied maintenance to the wife “on the ground that she was able-bodied and well-educated, but had chosen not to seek employment and had instead opted to remain dependent upon the husband”.

Aggrieved, the wife appealed against the order. In January 2024, the Appellate Court ordered enhancement of the maintenance for the child from Rs 10,000 to Rs 60,000 per month; however, it denied any maintenance to the wife.

Further, in May 2024, the Family Court in the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) granted the wife an interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month and Rs 40,000 per month to the minor child.

Arguments

In the revised petition, the husband’s counsel argued that the wife was a qualified make-up artist and capable of maintaining herself, and thus, should not be allowed to sustain solely on her husband’s earnings. He further argued that the husband’s net income is not sufficient, considering the high living costs in Kuwait and the ongoing home loan.

On the other hand, the wife’s counsel argued that the family court has held that the wife does not have an independent source of income, whereas the husband earns a substantial salary.

Court Observation

The High Court noted that “the parties were married in the year 2012 and had resided together till August 2020. During this entire period, the wife was neither employed nor earning any income. It is also not in dispute that even prior to the marriage, the wife had never been employed and had no independent source of income”. 

On the husband’s counsel’s arguments that the wife was capable, but had chosen not to work and was now seeking maintenance from husband and thus it should not be allowed, the Court said, “This Court notes that in many households in Indian society, it is still commonly expected that a woman, at the time of marriage, either does not work or, even if she is employed, is persuaded or compelled to give up her employment to devote her time to the household, the family, and the upbringing of children. This expectation is also witnessed even where the woman is educated and otherwise capable of pursuing a career.” 

“Such a stand cannot be encouraged. Where a husband has, either expressly or by conduct, required or expected his wife to give up her employment and assured her that he would take care of the financial needs of the family, he cannot later disown that very understanding and shift the entire burden upon the wife by contending that she ought to now independently sustain herself,” the court said.

The court added that the wife didn’t work till the time she was with her husband, and was now faulting her for not working and sustaining herself despite being qualified would be “unjust”. 

The court also noted the practical barriers to re-enter the workforce after marital breakdown. It said, “A woman who has stepped away from her profession due to marriage or family responsibilities cannot be expected to resume employment at the same level, salary, or professional standing merely because the marriage has broken down between the parties after several years.” 

Court Judgment

The High Court emphasised that “while one spouse may bring in monetary income, the other may invest time, effort, and opportunity costs into sustaining the family structure. When the relationship deteriorates, and parties are compelled to approach the court, one seeking maintenance and the other resisting it, the contributions of both must be weighed with fairness and balance.” 

The Court set aside the previous orders denying support to the wife and awarded an interim monthly maintenance of Rs 50,000 to her and Rs 40,000 to the minor child. It ordered a payment from the date of petition-filing, and directed the husband to pay the amount within six months, subject to setting off any prior payments.