Law does not promote laziness, a educated woman should not sit to maintain maintenance from her husband: Delhi HC-Delhi High Court observed law does not promote promoted Qualified Qualified Women Claim Maintenance NTCPPPL

The Delhi High Court has said that the law does not promote ‘laziness’ and ‘waste’ to sit, and qualified women with the ability to earn should not demand interim maintenance from their husbands.

Justil Chandra Dhari Singh said on March 19 that the legislative objective of Section 125 (order of maintenance of wives, children and parents) of CRPC is to maintain equality between husband and wife and provide protection to wives, children and parents, but it does not encourage “laziness”.

Under this order, the court dismissed a woman’s petition, in which she appealed against the decision of the lower court, refusing to give her interim maintenance to her separated husband.

Justice Singh said, “A well-educated wife, who has a suitable job experience, should not only sit to maintain maintenance from her husband. Therefore, interim maintenance is being discouraged in this case, because the court seems likely to earn and make good use of his education in the petitioner.”

However, the court encouraged him to actively find a job to become self -sufficient and said that he has a widespread experience and is not like uneducated women who are completely dependent on their husbands for basic livelihood.

The couple moved to Singapore after marriage in December 2019.

The woman alleged that she returned to India in February 2021 due to the cruelty of her husband and her family. She claimed that she sold her jewels to return to India and due to financial constraints she started living with her maternal uncle.

In June 2021, she filed a petition to demand maintenance from her husband.

The lower court dismissed his plea, after which she reached the High Court.

The woman claimed that the lower court dismissed her plea in a wrong way, as she was unemployed and had no independent income, while her husband earned well and won a magnificent lifestyle.

The husband opposed this petition and said that this is the misuse of the law, because the woman is well educated and capable of earning. He said that a woman cannot claim maintenance only on the basis of unemployment.

Refusing any relief to the woman, the High Court said that she could not understand why she remained inactive since returning to India despite being healthy and well -worthy. The court found that the woman had a master’s degree from Australia and was earning well in Dubai before marriage.

Agrening with the decision of the lower court, the High Court said that the woman claimed that she was not inactive and was looking for a job, but she neither presented any evidence in support of her claim nor resumed her business activities.

The court said, “It is not enough to prove the real efforts to become self -sufficient, without claims, without confirming evidence.”

Keeping some conversation between the woman and her mother, the court said that this makes it look “clear malicious” in seeking maintenance on her behalf.