“A METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT IN DELHI HELD THAT MAINTENANCE TO A WIFE FROM HUSBAND CANNOT BE GRANTED WHERE WIFE IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND HAS CAPACITY TO EARN”

In this case the court of magistrate was dealing with a domestic violence case filed by the woman seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- from her husband who is an orthopaedic surgeon.

It was held by the court that right to receive maintenance from the husband under the provision of the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005” is not an absolute right of a wife.

It was ruled by the court that in order to seek maintenance, the wife has to initially prove her inability to sustain, survive and manage even the basic necessities.

Further it is also important to be proven by the wife in order to seek maintenance that the husband earns and has a better life style and that she has been left fend for herself.

The women/wife needs to prove that either she is not earning or is capable to earn to maintain the same standard of living provided to her in the matrimonial house.

Although the provision to provide maintenance is present in the Act whereby the Magistrate may direct for monetary relief to wife as maintenance but in the present case it was ruled by the court that the woman/wife is MBA graduate and is qualified on a par as her husband. However she has not chosen to seek employment and be dependent on her husband.

Further the wife also failed to prove that her husband is maintaining a better standard of living than her. Infact the husband is unemployed and cannot said to be leading a luxurious life.

It was drawn by the court that the intent of the legislation while making an Act was not to encourage willful unemployment and unnecessary dependence on the husband.

Further it was also ruled by the court that in the absence of any dependent, either of the spouse cannot be made responsible for other’s well-being.

As aforesaid, the court found that the wife/woman was highly qualified and capable of finding a source of income for herself and that allowing maintenance to her would only promote idleness and dependency.

Hence the court rejected the grant of maintenance to the wife in view of her capacity to earn.

***