The Allahabad High Court refused to grant interim maintenance to a highly qualified doctor, observing that a spouse capable of earning cannot shift financial responsibility onto the other. The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the wife challenged a trial court order denying her maintenance.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Dr. Garima Dubey along with her three children against her husband, Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey. Both are medical professionals based in Prayagraj-she a gynecologist with an M.D. degree, and he a neurosurgeon.
The dispute traces back to divorce proceedings initiated by the husband. During the pendency of the case, the wife and children sought maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The trial court partly allowed the application. While it granted ₹60,000 per month for the children’s maintenance, it rejected the wife’s claim for interim maintenance under Section 24. Aggrieved by this, the wife approached the High Court.
Counsel for the appellant-wife argued that she was not currently employed and had allegedly lost her job after the initiation of the matrimonial dispute. It was submitted that she was entitled to financial support from her husband to maintain the same standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage.
On the other hand, the husband’s counsel contended that he had been regularly paying maintenance for the children without any default. He further argued that the wife, being a qualified and experienced gynecologist, had the capacity to earn even more than the husband in Uttar Pradesh. According to him, this very capability justified the trial court’s decision to deny her maintenance.
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Division Bench noted that it was undisputed that the appellant-wife holds a postgraduate medical degree and is a trained specialist.
The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the wife on a Supreme Court judgment, stating that the facts of that case were materially different. In the present matter, the Court found that the wife was not only qualified but also had a proven earning history.
the bench noted that her Income Tax Returns showed a past annual income exceeding ₹31 lakh, indicating her capacity to sustain herself.
Rejecting the claim that she was currently unemployed, the Court remarked that mere non-employment cannot be used as a ground to claim maintenance when the individual has the ability and qualifications to earn.
“The contention that she is presently not working is rejected,”
the bench stated, adding,
“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.”
The High Court held that the trial court’s order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. It found no reason to interfere with the rejection of the wife’s maintenance claim under Section 24.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, while the maintenance granted to the children remained undisturbed.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Garima Dubey and Others vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey
Case Number: First Appeal No. 594 of 2025
Judges: Hon’ble Justice Atul Sreedharan and Hon’ble Justice Vivek Saran
Decision Date: April 21, 2026
