Wife Leaving Job To Care For Child Not Voluntary Abandonment Of Work, Entitled To Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “...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. In such circumstances, the cessation of employment by the respondent cannot be viewed as voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care.”

The observation was made while dealing with a petition preferred by the husband seeking revision of a family court order asking him to pay interim maintenance to his wife.

The Petitioner contended that the Respondent-wife was highly educated and was working as a teacher, earning ₹40,000–₹45,000 per month, including tuition work.

The wife on the other hand claimed she is unable to engage in employment due to her responsibilities in caring for their minor son, and her past employment as a teacher cannot be a valid ground to deny her rightful maintenance.

Her counsel submitted that since it took long hours to commute and Respondent was not getting any employment near her home, she had to give up her teaching career to take care of the minor child, as a single parent.

In view of the above, the High Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) where the Supreme Court held that “On termination of the relationship, if the wife is educated and professionally qualified, but had to give up her employment opportunities to look after the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would be required to be given due importance.”

In the case at hand, it noted the respondent was previously employed as a guest teacher; however, owing to the compelling responsibilities of single handedly raising the child and the considerable distance of her workplace, she had to discontinue her employment.

Finding substance in her explanation, the High Court said the Family Court rightly held that for the period during which the respondent/wife was employed, she was not entitled to maintenance and for the period thereafter, granted maintenance after assessing the notional income of the husband, a practicing lawyer by profession.

However, noting that the income affidavit or bank statements of the petitioner-husband were not taken into account, the Court directed the family court to reconsider the application for interim maintenance afresh.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner shall continue to pay the interim maintenance as directed.

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 542

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 1373/2024

Click here to read order