Gurpratap Singh v. Aashna Kaur (Delhi High Court) CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 266/2025,

(i) In Smt. Farjana and Another vs. Rashid andOthers, (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Apex Court emphasised that “the inability to maintain herself is a precondition for the grant of maintenance to the wife.” It was further observed that the wife must explicitly assert and substantiate her claim of being unable to sustain herself in order to be eligible for maintenance.

(ii) The Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal in CM (M) ENo.539/2008 decided on 10.09.2008 observed that when Income of both husband and wife are almost similar and both almost equally qualified, there is no justification to grant interim maintenance to the wife.

(iii) Similarly, in the case of Gurpreet Dhariwal vs. Amit Jain, MAT.APP. (F.C.) 311/2019, it was observed by Division Bench of this Court that a lady having capacity to work cannot be allowed to sit idle and be burden on her husband for demanding maintenance and litigation expenses. It was concluded that the appellant can very well earn and support herself and declined to grant any maintenance.

(iv) Similarly, in the case of Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234DLT 693, it was observed by this Court that a very qualified spouse having the earning capacity but desirous of remaining idle, cannot set up a claim for interim maintenance.

(v) Similar observations have been made in the cases of Damanpreet Kaur vs. Indermeet Juneja, Crl. Rev. P. 344/2011; K. N. vs.R.G., MAT. APP (F.C.) 93/2018 and Mamta vs. Rajesh, (2000) 3 MP LJ 100.

(vi) There is no denial that the wife is highly qualified and has excellence skills in HR and may with an effort be able to get a job. However, it cannot be overlooked that there is nothing to show that she is presently employed. It cannot be said that she has intentionally left the job, considering that she had left the job when she shifted to Australia after her marriage. Till such time she is able to get gainful employment or develop the source of income, she has a right of being supported and managed by the Petitioner, her husband.

(vii) Some contentions have been raised that it is the Indian standards,which have to be considered and not the Australian income for assessing interim maintenance. It is correct that being in Australia, the expenses may be different from those in India, but it cannot be overlooked that the incomes are accordingly different. Husband residing in Australia is earning in Australian Dollars, though when it comes to giving money in India, even Rs.1,00,000/- also as per his own calculations come to about AUD $1806.

(viii) To say at this stage that by granting maintenance to the wife despite her earning capacity, would be breeding a class of idle women who being a burden on their husband, may be premature and unwarranted especially considering that it is only an ad-interim maintenance Order to provide immediate relief to the lady till such time the interim maintenance application is decided.