Caring For Child Not Voluntary Unemployment, Rules Delhi HC; Woman Entitled To Maintenance

A woman's decision to quit her job in order to care for her child does not amount to voluntary unemployment and does not disqualify her from receiving alimony, the Delhi High Court has ruled.

The court further clarified that a wife's actual income, not merely her ability to earn, must be taken into account when determining maintenance.

Photo Credit: Pexels

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by the woman's estranged husband, who challenged a 2023 court order requiring him to pay ₹7,500 each to his wife and their six-year-old son.

The man, a district court advocate, claimed he earned only ₹10,000-₹15,000 per month and argued that his wife, a qualified teacher who previously earned ₹40,000-₹50,000 a month, was capable of supporting herself.

On that basis, he contended that she was not entitled to maintenance. He also claimed to be under financial and emotional strain, rendering him unable to comply with the court's order.

The couple, who married in 2016, have been living apart since 2017. The woman has alleged cruelty and harassment, while her husband claimed he remained willing to live with her and their son.

Representing the woman, her counsel argued that the husband was in a better financial position than claimed, with additional income from rental properties besides his legal practice.

"It is argued that the respondent is currently unable to engage in employment due to her responsibilities in caring for their minor son, and her past employment as a teacher cannot be a valid ground to deny her rightful maintenance," the court order noted.

The woman explained that she had to quit her teaching job due to long travel times and the absence of suitable employment nearby. As a single mother, she said she was unable to balance full-time work with childcare responsibilities.

The High Court accepted her explanation, stating that her decision to stop working was "both reasonable and justified".

It added: "It is well settled that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support also to take care of the child while the mother is at work. In such circumstances, the cessation of employment by the respondent cannot be viewed as voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care."

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also cited a Supreme Court precedent, saying that the capacity to earn is not equivalent to actual earnings.

"It is not the potential earning capacity of the wife but her actual income at the relevant time that is to be considered while determining the amount of maintenance. Thus, the learned Family Court has rightly observed that there exists a material distinction between being 'capable of earning' and 'actually earning'."

The Family Court had previously estimated the man's notional monthly income to be ₹30,000, noting that he had been employed since 2010 - an assessment the High Court said was not wholly unreasonable.

However, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Family Court, stating: "Considering the above discussion and taking into account the fact that income affidavit filed by the petitioner herein was not taken into consideration, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned Family Court. The Family Court shall reconsider the application for interim maintenance afresh, specifically taking into account the income affidavits and bank statements filed by both parties, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order."

Pending a final ruling, the High Court directed that the interim payments continue.

"In the meantime, as an interim arrangement, the petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of ₹7,500 per month to the respondent/wife and ₹4,500/- per month to respondent no. 2/minor child, which shall be without prejudice to the final determination by the learned Family Court, and any amount paid shall remain adjustable in future maintenance," it concluded.