Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South District, Saket, New Delhi, denying interim maintenance to a petitioner-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stated that a well-educated and able-bodied wife who deliberately chooses not to work to seek maintenance cannot claim interim financial relief from her husband. The judgment, delivered on March 19, 2025, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the lower court’s reasoning that the petitioner had not demonstrated an inability to maintain herself.

The case arose from a petition filed by the wife, seeking to set aside the Family Court’s order dated November 5, 2022, which denied her request for interim maintenance. The petitioner and the respondent were married in December 2019 and resided in Singapore before the wife returned to India in February 2021, alleging cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. She further claimed that the respondent revoked her spousal visa, leaving her stranded in Singapore and forcing her to sell her jewellery to return to India.

Also Read: Courts Cannot Rewrite Statutory Provisions or Introduce additional procedural Safeguards that are not contemplated by law’: Supreme Court Rejects IAS Officer’s Plea for Mandatory Preliminary

After facing financial difficulties, the petitioner moved in with her maternal uncle and subsequently filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC in June 2021, seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court dismissed her application, concluding that she was well-educated, had prior professional experience, and had the capacity to earn a livelihood. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, sought relief from the High Court.

The petitioner contended that she was financially dependent on her family, had no independent source of income, and had made continuous but unsuccessful efforts to find employment. She argued that the Family Court erroneously relied on her LinkedIn profile to assume that she was earning. Further, she alleged that the respondent, who previously earned a substantial salary in Singapore, was evading his financial responsibilities by falsely claiming unemployment. She stated that even if the respondent had lost his job, his obligation to maintain her persisted, as per Supreme Court precedent.

Conversely, the respondent opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner was highly educated and capable of earning. He submitted that she had previously worked as an Audit Associate at KPMG Dubai, had a Master’s degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, and had run an artificial jewelry business before marriage. The respondent also presented WhatsApp conversations where the petitioner’s mother advised her against taking a job as it could affect her alimony claim. The respondent claimed that he had lost his job and had no means to provide maintenance.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, after reviewing the arguments and evidence, concurred with the Family Court’s findings, stating:

"The petitioner possesses a master’s degree from Australia and has had prior employment, including as an Audit Associate at KPMG Dubai and as a Human Resources Manager. The evidence, including her LinkedIn profile and WhatsApp conversations, suggests a deliberate attempt to remain unemployed to claim maintenance."

The Court further noted:

"The petitioner’s failure to provide any evidence of genuine job-seeking efforts casts doubt on her claims. A well-educated and capable spouse cannot choose to remain idle and expect maintenance."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, which lays down the principles for determining maintenance, and observed that a wife’s inability to maintain herself is a precondition for granting maintenance. It also cited Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, where the Supreme Court held that a wife's capacity to earn and deliberate unemployment are crucial factors in determining maintenance claims.

Moreover, the Court relied on the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Gurpreet Dhariwal v. Amit Jain, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1066, where it was observed that an educated and employable woman could be denied interim maintenance if she had not disclosed her complete financial status.

Also Read:Madras HC Upholds ART Age Cap: “No Legal Right Beyond 50” as Court Cites Risks and Difficulty of Supporting Child in Elderly Year

The Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Family Court’s decision:

"This Court is of the view that a well-educated wife, with experience in a suitable gainful job, ought not to remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband. Section 125 of the CrPC is not intended to promote idleness but to provide financial support to those genuinely in need."

The Court encouraged the petitioner to actively seek employment and become self-sufficient, stating:

"There is no reason why the petitioner, who has prior work experience and an international degree, should not be able to sustain herself."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Sehgal, Proxy Counsel.

For the Respondent: Mr. Aditya Singla, Ms. Supriya Juneja, and Mr. Ritwik Saha, Advocates.

Case Title: Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 273/2023 & Crl.M.A.6767/2023
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1742

[Read/Download order]