On behalf of the wife, it was argued that she had been removed from her job following initiation of the matrimonial dispute and was presently without any independent source of income. (AI image)

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed a critical principle in matrimonial law that maintenance is not a relief to encourage a spouse to not work when they are capable. The Court has rejected an interim maintenance claim by a highly educated doctor-wife, stating that a spouse fully capable of earning cannot opt for non-working and place a financial burden on their spouse.The decision came in First Appeal No. 594 of 2025, decided by a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran.Background of the CaseThe dispute arose from matrimonial proceedings between two highly qualified medical professionals. The wife, a practicing gynaecologist with an M.D. degree, challenged a trial court order which had partly rejected her application for maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.While the trial court had allowed maintenance for the three children, directing the husband, a neurosurgeon, to pay Rs.60,000/- per month, it refused to grant maintenance to the wife under Section 24.Aggrieved by this partial rejection, the wife approached the High Court, arguing that she was currently not employed and required financial support from her husband to maintain the same standard of living she had enjoyed during the marriage.Submissions Before the CourtOn behalf of the wife, it was argued that she had been removed from her job following initiation of the matrimonial dispute and was presently without any independent source of income. It was argued that under Section 24 of the Act, she was entitled to interim maintenance to sustain herself during the pendency of the proceedings.Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai to argue that maintenance must be granted where the spouse is unable to maintain herself.On the other hand, the husband opposed the claim, emphasizing that he was already paying Rs.60,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the children. It was further argued that the wife was a highly qualified medical professional who had the capacity to earn significantly, even more than the husband, and therefore could not claim to be dependent.The husband’s counsel submitted that the trial court had rightly relied on the wife’s income tax returns, which reflected an annual income exceeding Rs.31 lakhs, thereby demonstrating her financial independence and earning capability.Court’s AnalysisThe High Court carefully examined the factual and legal position and found no infirmity in the trial court’s decision.At the outset, the Court distinguished the reliance placed on Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, observing that the said judgment applied to cases where the wife was genuinely unable to maintain herself. In contrast, the present case involved a highly qualified and professionally capable individual.The Court noted that the appellant-wife was not only an M.D. (Gynaecologist) but also possessed the skill and expertise to earn a substantial income in her field. It emphasized that such professional qualifications could not be ignored while assessing entitlement to maintenance.The Court while rejecting the argument that the wife was presently unemployed, took a firm view against what it perceived as voluntary non-employment.In a significant observation, the Court held that:“Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24.”The Court further relied on the material on record, particularly the income tax returns, which showed that the wife had previously earned over Rs.31 lakhs per annum. This, according to the Court, clearly established her financial capacity and negated her claim of dependency.Maintenance of Children Not in DisputeImportantly, the Court noted that the husband was already complying with his obligation towards the children by paying Rs.60,000/- per month, and there was no dispute on that aspect.Thus, the only question before the Court was the entitlement of the wife to interim maintenance under Section 24, which the Court answered in the negative.While dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the findings of the trial court and declined to interfere with the order rejecting the wife’s claim for maintenance.The Court affirmed that the wife, being a highly qualified medical professional with proven earning capacity, was not entitled to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as she was capable of maintaining herself and could not claim support merely by choosing not to work.FIRST APPEAL No. – 594 of 2025Dr Garima Dubey And 3 Others vs Dr. Saurabh Anand DubeyDate of Decision: April 21, 2026Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akarsh Dwivedi, Mrigendra Singh, Suvrat DwivediCounsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Tripathi, Firoz Haider, Priya Saxena, Sanjay Kumar Pal(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)