'Capability To Earn' & 'Actual Earnings' Are Separate Things: Delhi High Court Upholds Grant Of Maintenance To MBA-Qualified Wife
Stating that “capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things”, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the grant of maintenance to an MBA-qualified wife.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that when the couple separated, their child was very young and in order to take care of the child, the wife may have left her job.“A wife...
Stating that “capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things”, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the grant of maintenance to an MBA-qualified wife.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that when the couple separated, their child was very young and in order to take care of the child, the wife may have left her job.
“A wife may leave her job due to family circumstances or to take care of the child, and with the passage of time, she may not be able to secure suitable employment due to lack of experience or other factors. In such circumstances, merely on the basis of her capability to earn, she cannot be denied maintenance for herself and the child,” the judges said.
The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the appellant-husband against the family court order awarding maintenance pendente lite of ₹10,000/- for the wife and ₹15,000/- per month for their minor daughter.
The husband claimed that the respondent-wife held B.Tech and MBA degrees, and was earning approximately ₹3 lakhs per annum before marriage and continued to earn significantly even after filing the maintenance petition.
He further submitted that she falsely claimed in her maintenance petition that she had not been earning for the last 2 years.
The High Court however, noted that the husband could not produce any material before the Family Court to show that the wife is currently working.
“Though, the respondent No.1 is well-qualified, it is an admitted fact that the parties separated when the child was very young and as such, in order to take care of the child, the respondent no.1 might have left her previous job,” the Court remarked.
It also noted that the husband was voluntarily paying maintenance to his mother to the tune of Rs.35,000/- and hence, should not have contested the sum awarded to his wife and child as excessive.
The Court further reiterated that no relaxation for any personal loan or society loan or for purchase of any house or investment in any house, can be given in matters of maintenance, as the loans are being taken by the husband for his own benefit.
As such, the appeal was dismissed.
Appearance: Appellant (present in person); Ms. Charu & Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advs. for R-1 & R-2.
Case title: SKD v. MG & Ors.
Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 135/2025