Merely because a wife is a Graduate, she cannot be compelled to work, Delhi HC on the husband’s claim to reduce interim maintenance

While hearing the Arvind Singh vs. Rajni and Anr. case on October 12, 2023, the Delhi High Court bench observed that merely because a wife holds a graduate degree, she cannot be compelled to work. The bench also refused to agree to the wife’s request to increase the interim maintenance granted by the Family court. The matter addressed here was in relation to a matrimonial dispute. The Delhi HC refused to interfere with the impugned order of the family Court stating, “...the sole ground on which the husband has sought reduction of maintenance is that the respondent/wife has a degree of B.Sc. There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No interference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband.”

During the proceedings, while refusing the increase in the interim maintenance, the Court said, “The wife has neither been able to show that the estimation of the income of the husband is incorrect nor that he has a much higher monthly income; thus, we do not find any reason to question this assessment of monthly income of the husband, made in the impugned Order. The learned Principal Judge has considered reasonably the expenditure of the wife and the son and has directed payment of interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month. There is no ground made out by the wife for enhancement of the maintenance.” After hearing the arguments submitted by Advocate Madhu Bhushan and Advocate Pallavi Garg appearing for the husband and the wife respectively, the HC ordered, “We find that the penalty imposed for delay in payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month to the wife has been fixed at Rs. 1000 per day which comes to Rs. 30,000 per month i.e. more than the interim maintenance which has been allowed to the respondent. It is not justiciable that the penalty surpasses the substantial relief granted by way of pendente lite maintenance. For the same reason, the imposition of a penalty of Rs, 550 per day for the day for the delay in payment of litigation cost of Rs. 33,000 is not justiciable.”