“A homemaker does not “sit idle”; she performs labour that enables the earning spouse to function effectively. To disregard this contribution while adjudicating claims of maintenance would be unrealistic and unjust,” the order read.

The court, therefore, rejected the contention equating non-employment of a wife with idleness or deliberate dependence on the husband.

What was the case?

• The case arose from matrimonial disputes between a couple who were married in 2012 and lived together in India and later in Kuwait.
• The couple adopted a male child in 2015.
• The wife alleged that the husband deserted her and the minor child in August 2020 and returned to Kuwait.
• She thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking maintenance.
• While the magistrate granted Rs 10,000 per month towards the child’s expenses (apart from school fees), interim maintenance to the wife was denied on the ground that she was “able-bodied”, well-educated and had allegedly concealed income.
• In an appeal filed by the wife, the appellate court enhanced the child’s maintenance amount but refused maintenance to the wife, citing incomplete disclosure of bank statements.
• Feeling aggrieved by the denial of interim maintenance in her favour, the wife approached the high court. The husband aggrieved by the enhancement of interim maintenance payable to the minor son also approached the high court.

Court’s observations

• The amounts paid by the husband to the wife after he had left the wife and the minor son in India and returned alone to Kuwait, have been treated as the wife’s income and made the basis for doubting her claim of unemployment. Such an approach is wholly misplaced.
• Mere fact that the wife claimed to have received financial assistance/loans from her parents or relatives in a time of need cannot be construed as evidence of her financial independence or earning capacity nor can it be treated as a false or misleading disclosure.
• It has been consistently held by the supreme court that there is a clear distinction between the capacity to earn and actual earning and merely because a wife is capable of earning cannot be a ground to deny maintenance in the absence of any proof of actual income.
• Even if the wife had not filed bank account statements for the period prior to August 2020, and filed statements for the period September 2020 till August 2022, the same could not have been made a sole ground to deny her interim maintenance by holding that her income could not be assessed.
• Both the magistrate as well as the appellate court, in proceedings under the PWDV Act, have misdirected themselves and failed to correctly appreciate the central issue, that whether the wife was entitled to interim maintenance.

Marital expectations and social context

• In many households in Indian society, it is still commonly expected that a woman, at the time of marriage, either does not work or, even if she is employed, is persuaded or compelled to give up her employment to devote her time to the household, the family, and the upbringing of children.
• This expectation is also witnessed even where the woman is educated and otherwise capable of pursuing a career.
• However, when matrimonial relations deteriorate and legal proceedings ensue, it is frequently seen that the same husband takes a starkly contrary position and contends that the wife is well-qualified, capable of earning, and is deliberately choosing to remain unemployed while seeking maintenance. Such a stand cannot be encouraged.

Myth of idle wife

• It was also argued on behalf of the husband that the wife cannot sit “idle” and claim maintenance.
• While there is no quarrel with the proposition that women who are able and willing to work should be encouraged to pursue employment, the denial of maintenance on the sole ground that a wife is capable of earning and should not remain dependent upon her husband is a flawed approach.
• The capacity to earn and actual earning are distinct concepts, and as per settled law, mere capacity to earn cannot be a ground to deny maintenance. The real test is whether the wife is actually earning.
• To describe non-employment as idleness is easy, to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult. These responsibilities do not appear in bank statements or generate taxable income, yet they form the invisible structure on which many families function.
• It must be remembered that while one spouse may bring in monetary income, the other may invest time, effort, and opportunity costs into sustaining the family structure.
• The law must recognise not only financial earnings but also the economic value of the contribution of the wife within the home and domestic relationship during the subsistence of the marriage.

Court’s directions

• The conclusions arrived at by the magistrate and the appellate Court insofar as they deny interim maintenance to the wife, are set aside.
• The enhancement of maintenance to Rs 60,000 per month granted to the minor child by the appellate court in the proceedings under the PWDV Act is reduced to Rs 40,000 per month, and the orders of magistrate and appellate court are set aside qua denial of maintenance to the wife and maintenance of Rs 50,000 is awarded in favor of the wife in proceedings under PWDV Act.