Introduction:

In the matter of SKD v. MG & Ors., MAT.APP.(F.C.) 135/2025, the Delhi High Court recently delivered an important judgment that reiterates the distinction between a woman’s educational qualifications and her actual earning capacity in the context of maintenance. A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar dismissed an appeal filed by the husband challenging the family court’s decision to award ₹10,000 per month to his estranged wife and ₹15,000 per month for their minor daughter as interim maintenance. The High Court emphasized that mere capability to earn based on qualifications such as B.Tech and MBA does not automatically negate a woman’s right to maintenance if practical circumstances, including motherhood and caregiving responsibilities, hinder her ability to work. The judgment is a significant affirmation of gender-sensitive judicial interpretation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, especially in cases where women sacrifice their professional careers for child-rearing and domestic responsibilities post-separation.

Arguments by the Appellant (Husband):

The appellant, appearing in person, vehemently challenged the family court’s order on multiple grounds. His primary argument revolved around the academic qualifications of the respondent-wife, asserting that she was not only highly educated but also capable of earning a substantial income. He claimed that the wife held a B.Tech degree as well as an MBA, and had a well-established career before their marriage, earning approximately ₹3 lakhs per annum. The appellant further alleged that the respondent continued to work even after the filing of the maintenance application and thus falsely stated before the family court that she had been unemployed for the last two years. According to the appellant, this misrepresentation amounted to material concealment and ought to have been taken seriously by the court while assessing her entitlement to maintenance. He also contended that the amount of ₹25,000 per month awarded jointly for the wife and child was excessive, especially given his own financial obligations, including a personal loan, society dues, and a home loan. The husband further submitted that he had been voluntarily paying ₹35,000 per month to his mother and argued that this should have been considered while deciding the quantum of maintenance.

Arguments by the Respondents (Wife and Daughter):

Represented by Advocates Ms. Charu and Mr. Shubham Kumar, the respondent-wife and her minor daughter contended that the family court’s decision was just, reasonable, and sensitive to the real-life implications of their circumstances. The wife emphasized that despite her academic background, she was forced to quit her job in order to care for their child following the breakdown of the marital relationship. She pointed out that the child was very young when the separation occurred and required full-time care, thereby making it practically impossible for her to remain employed or seek new employment with equal remuneration. It was argued that having professional degrees does not equate to having an immediate or guaranteed source of income, especially when the person is out of the workforce for an extended period. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the husband had not been able to provide any evidence to prove that she was still working or drawing a salary during the relevant period. They also challenged the husband’s assertion that his loans and voluntary payments to his mother should be prioritized over statutory obligations of spousal and child support. Citing judicial precedents, they argued that no deductions or financial accommodations could be made for loans or discretionary expenses when calculating maintenance for dependents.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

Delivering its verdict, the Delhi High Court took a firm stance in favor of the respondent-wife and minor daughter, upholding the order passed by the family court. The bench emphasized that “capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things,” especially in the context of family responsibilities that disproportionately affect women. The Court observed that it is not uncommon for a woman to voluntarily leave employment to manage household responsibilities and care for children—particularly post-separation—resulting in long-term career setbacks. The Court noted that in the present case, the child was very young at the time of the parties’ separation, and there was no material evidence submitted by the husband to demonstrate that the wife was currently employed. On the contrary, the wife’s claim of having left her job to care for the child appeared reasonable and consistent with the overall facts. Therefore, the Court held that her educational qualifications alone could not be a ground to deny her maintenance. The High Court also scrutinized the husband’s financial claims, especially the argument that he was voluntarily paying ₹35,000 to his mother and had taken loans for housing and other purposes. The Court categorically held that voluntary payments to relatives or personal financial decisions like house purchases or investments cannot override statutory responsibilities to support one’s spouse and children. The bench emphasized that such loans and discretionary payments are not considered valid grounds for reducing maintenance liabilities. The Court cited settled legal principles that in maintenance proceedings, courts are bound to prioritize the financial needs of the dependent spouse and children above any self-incurred liabilities of the earning spouse. With respect to the alleged false claim by the wife regarding her unemployment, the Court held that mere allegations without evidence could not be the basis for discrediting her claim. Since the appellant failed to produce documents or material proof to demonstrate that the wife was gainfully employed during the relevant period, the family court’s decision was found to be based on sound judicial reasoning. Importantly, the Court emphasized that interim maintenance under Section 24 is meant to provide immediate financial relief and is not a conclusive determination of the parties’ long-term financial standing. This relief aims to ensure that the dependent spouse and children can maintain a lifestyle comparable to that which they enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. Dismissing the husband’s appeal, the Court reiterated that the family court’s grant of ₹10,000 for the wife and ₹15,000 for the daughter was neither excessive nor unjustified, especially in light of the husband’s own demonstrated capacity to pay ₹35,000 monthly to his mother. The judgment concluded by stating that the appeal lacked merit and failed to make out any case for interference with the family court’s well-reasoned and balanced decision.