The Delhi High Court has held that a wife who leaves her job to take care of her child cannot be denied maintenance simply because she is educated or previously employed. The court emphasized that caregiving responsibilities for a minor child often fall heavily on the parent with custody, affecting their ability to maintain employment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated:
“...the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support also to take care of the child while the mother is at work.”
Read also:- Rights Of Prior User Prevail Over Registered Trademark Holder: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To German
Background of the Case
The court was hearing a petition filed by a husband seeking revision of a family court order directing him to pay interim maintenance to his wife. The husband argued that his wife was highly educated and previously worked as a teacher, earning between ₹40,000 and ₹45,000 per month, including tuition work.
However, the wife explained that her role as the primary caregiver for their minor son prevented her from continuing her job. She argued that commuting long distances and the lack of suitable job opportunities near her home forced her to quit her teaching career.
Her counsel further submitted that the absence of family support to care for the child made it impossible for her to continue working.
Read also:- No Objections U/S 47 Of CPC Can Be Moved By Judgment Debtor Against Execution Of Award U/S 36 Of A&C
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021), where it was held that if a wife is qualified but has to give up her career to care for her minor children and other family members, this factor must be given due importance.
In this case, the court acknowledged that the wife was previously employed as a guest teacher. However, her responsibilities as a single parent and the considerable distance to her workplace compelled her to leave the job.
The court found that the family court had rightly granted maintenance for the period after the wife left her job. It further noted that the family court should have considered the husband’s income affidavit or bank statements while determining the maintenance amount.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the family court to reconsider the application for interim maintenance, taking into account the husband’s financial details.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Slams Abuse of Writ Jurisdiction for Fraudulent GST Claims; ₹1 Lakh Cost Imposed
Until then, the husband was ordered to continue paying the existing interim maintenance.
Appearance: Mr.Mayank Maini, Mr.Anmol Chadha, Mr.Biman Sethi, Mr.Aryan Sharma and Mr.Ankit Verma, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Praveen Kumar v. Pooja Arya
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 1373/2024
