Case at a Glance
In a neurosurgeon husband's divorce case, his wife, an MD gynaecologist, and their three children sought maintenance. The trial court refused the wife's claim under Section 24, relying on tax returns showing income above ₹31 lakh a year, while the husband pays ₹60,000 a month for the children. The Allahabad High Court held that a court may deny maintenance where a qualified person capable of earning well refrains from working only to burden her spouse, and dismissed the appeal.
Background
The wife is an MD gynaecologist and the husband a neurosurgeon, both living in Prayagraj. They have three children. The husband filed for divorce, and the wife and children applied for maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
By order dated 7 April 2025 the trial court rejected the wife's Section 24 claim, relying on her income tax returns showing income above ₹31 lakh a year. The husband's payment of ₹60,000 a month for the children is undisputed. On appeal, the wife's counsel argued that she was not working because she had been removed from her hospital job after the case was filed, and that she should be able to keep her earlier standard of living.
The Question Before the Court
Is a highly qualified spouse who is capable of earning, but not currently working, entitled to maintenance pendente lite?
Capacity to Earn Matters
The Court found that the wife is a qualified specialist who can earn substantially through her expertise, and rejected the argument that her current unemployment entitled her to maintenance. It 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 on her husband, the court may deny maintenance under Section 24.
The wife relied on Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, but the Court distinguished it as a case under Section 125 CrPC involving a wife who could not earn. It held that the trial court's order could not be faulted and dismissed the appeal, leaving the children's maintenance undisturbed.
What the Court Held
- A qualified spouse capable of earning who refrains from working to burden the other may be denied Section 24 maintenance.
- The wife's tax returns showed income above ₹31 lakh a year.
- Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai was distinguished because it concerned a wife unable to earn.
- The appeal was dismissed; the ₹60,000 monthly maintenance for the children continues.
Why It Matters
- Earning capacity, not just current income, is relevant under Section 24.
- Children's maintenance under Section 26 is assessed separately from the spouse's claim.
- Claims of sudden unemployment are tested against qualifications and past earnings.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Highly qualified spouses may find interim maintenance hard to obtain.
- Children's maintenance can still be claimed separately.
For counsel
- Produce the applicant's tax returns and professional qualifications.
- Explain any genuine loss of employment with evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Wife's interim maintenance refused.
- Earning capacity counts.
- Children's ₹60,000 continues.
- Chaturbhuj distinguished.
FAQs
Does this mean qualified wives never get maintenance?
No. The Court addressed a spouse capable of earning well who chooses not to.
What about the children?
Their maintenance of ₹60,000 a month continues.
What evidence was decisive?
The wife's income tax returns and professional qualifications.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court held that interim maintenance is not meant for a highly qualified professional who can support herself but chooses not to.
Practical takeaway: under Section 24, the ability to earn can matter as much as present income.