New Delhi, Feb 23: Dispelling the “myth” of an “idle wife”, the Delhi High Court has said that a homemaker’s labour enables the earning spouse to function effectively, and it was “unjust” to disregard her contributions while deciding maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a wife’s non-employment cannot be equated with idleness or deliberate dependence, and when determining maintenance, the law must recognise not only financial earnings but also the economic value of her contributions to the home and domestic relationship during the subsistence of marriage.
“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 in its judgment passed on February 16.
“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.
The court made the observations while dealing with the grant of maintenance to an estranged wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
A magisterial court had refused to grant interim maintenance to the woman on the grounds that she was able-bodied and well-educated but had chosen not to seek employment. No relief was granted to the wife by the appellate court.
The parties married in 2012, and it was alleged that the husband deserted the wife and their minor son in 2020.
The husband claimed before the high court that the wife cannot sit “idle” and claim maintenance when she was capable of earning, and that he was meeting the educational expenses of their minor child.
The court said the capacity to earn and actual earnings were distinct concepts, and as per settled law, mere capacity to earn was not 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.
“Managing a household, caring for children, supporting the family, and adjusting one’s life around the career and transfers of the earning spouse are all forms of work, even though they are unpaid and often unacknowledged. These responsibilities do not appear in bank statements or generate taxable income, yet they form the invisible structure on which many families function,” the court noted.
It added that in Indian society, a woman was still expected to give up employment after marriage but a contrary position was frequently taken by husbands in matrimonial disputes to refuse maintenance to her “well-qualified” wife by accusing her of deliberately choosing to remain unemployed.
Such a stand, the court said, cannot be encouraged, and the law must ensure that the spouse who invested time, effort and years into building the family was not left economically stranded.
It also acknowledged that a woman who stepped away from her profession due to marriage or family responsibilities cannot be expected to later resume employment at the same level, salary, or professional standing.
The court concluded that in the present case, there was no material on record to establish any past or present employment or earnings of the wife, and awarded Rs 50,000 to her in proceedings under the law against domestic violence.
The court also raised concern over maintenance proceedings often becoming “intensely adversarial”, saying it rarely served the long-term interests of either parties, or their minor children.
It said that mediation, and not continued litigation, offered a more constructive path forward in matrimonial disputes, as it provided a better space for meaningful dialogue, realistic assessment of needs and capacities of both the husband and the wife, and mutually acceptable solutions.
Court proceedings make initiation of dialogue between the parties difficult, and in such contested proceedings, the wife might overstate her monthly expenses while the husband often understates his income or pleads financial incapacity, the court said. (PTI)
