Court rejects ‘idle wife’ argument
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a wife’s non-employment cannot be equated with idleness or deliberate dependence. The court noted that a homemaker’s role supports the earning spouse and sustains the household.
“The assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contributions.
To describe non-employment as idleness is easy; to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult,” the court said in its February 16 judgment.
It added: “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.
“This court is, therefore, unable to agree with any view that equates non-employment of a wife with idleness or deliberate dependence on the husband,” it said.
Background of the case
The court was hearing a plea for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. A magisterial court had earlier refused interim maintenance to the woman, saying she was well-educated and able-bodied but had not sought employment. An appellate court also denied relief.The couple married in 2012. The wife alleged that the husband deserted her and their minor son in 2020. The husband argued that she could not remain “idle” and claim maintenance when she was capable of earning and that he was already paying for the child’s education.
Capacity to earn not equal to actual income
The high court said that the capacity to earn and actual earnings are different. It held that the possibility of earning cannot be a ground to deny maintenance.
“Women who can and are willing to work should be encouraged, but the denial of maintenance on the sole ground that she is capable of earning and should not remain dependent upon her husband was a flawed approach,” the court said.
The court observed that managing a household, caring for children, supporting the family and adjusting life around the earning spouse’s career are all forms of work, even though they are unpaid.
Social realities must be considered
The court noted that in many cases in India, women step away from employment after marriage or for family responsibilities. It said that such women cannot be expected to return to work later at the same level, salary or professional standing.
It added that in matrimonial disputes, husbands often argue that their “well-qualified” wives deliberately remain unemployed to avoid work. The court said such a stand cannot be encouraged and the law must ensure that a spouse who invested years in building a family is not left without economic support.
₹50,000 interim maintenance awarded
The court said there was no record of the wife’s past or present employment or earnings. It then awarded ₹50,000 as interim maintenance under the domestic violence law.
The court also raised concern that maintenance cases often become “intensely adversarial” and may not serve the long-term interests of either party or their minor children.
It said mediation offers a more constructive approach as it allows meaningful dialogue, realistic assessment of needs and capacities of both sides, and mutually acceptable solutions. The court noted that in contested proceedings, wives may overstate expenses while husbands may understate income or claim financial incapacity, making resolution more difficult.
(Source: PTI)