The above question again came for consideration before the division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.Kameswar Rao, in a MAT.APP.(F.C) No. 196/ 2023 Titled as Chetram Mali Vs. Karishma Saini, in which vide order & Judgment dated 21.11.2023, the Hon’ble High Court again reiterated and laid down that the spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who choose to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincer efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses. In the said judgment the Hon’ble High Court has observed as under:-

It may be noticed that though respondent claims to have no independent source of income but has reasonable educational background being a graduate from Delhi University. She appears to have voluntarily undertaken social work as claimed despite there being no impediment for undertaking a meaningful employment. The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses. The equivalence does not have to be with mathematical precision but with the objective to provide relief to the spouse by way of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, who is unable to maintain and support during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure that party should not suffer due to paucity of source of income. The provision is gender neutral and the provisions of Section 24 & 25 of HMA provide for the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from marriage between the parties under HMA.

Similarly, in another case of maintenance vide (MAT.APP.(F.C) 248/2019 , dated 12.09.2023, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that a well-educated woman who has worked in past and did not disclose about her income, is not entitled for any maintenance. In this very case while rejecting the appeal of the estranged wife, the court has observed “in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance. Pertinently, the claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal which is hereby dismissed.”

In the above judgment, there are two important observations. First, the appellant was a highly qualified and has earning capacity. Second she has not disclosed her true income from her previous employment. Based on these observations, the High Court has declined to grant any maintenance to the appellant and dismissed her appeal.

SIMLAR OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HON’BLE COURT IN THE CASES RELATED TO MAINTENANCE:-

1. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Revision No.1290 of 1999 decided on 24.03.2000.

In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that well-qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged. It is further held that a lady, who is fighting matrimonial litigation filed for Divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during the pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of idle people who would be sitting idle waiting for a "dole" to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the court for seeking relief against her. The case maybe vice versa also. If a husband is well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and wait for a "dole" to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolent as well idles so also does not want an army of self-made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but for away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlements because he would be reaping the in nature of pendente lite alimony, and to prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be the aim, goal of section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard-earned money by toiling working hours.

2. Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermet Juneja & Anr. 2012 [4] JCC 237.

In this case, it was held that if the wife was working in past and resigned from the employment, she is not entitled for maintenance under the Domestic Violence act. The question of whether the wife was forced to resign or she has resigned herself is a question to be considered by the court during the trial and also the question of whether the reason given by her for resigning was satisfactory or not. These are the question to be gone into during evidence by the ld. Trial Court.

3. Vijay Kumar Vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal decided on 10.09.2008 in CM (M) ENo.539/2008 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that when the 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.

So in view of the above cited judgments, it is now well settled that a spouse who is highly qualified and has capability to earn, is not entitled for maintenance. It is clarified here that in the maintenance cases, there are so many other factors are relevant do decide the maintenance cases as such there is no straight jacket formula to be applied in all the cases and decision of the court deepened and vary upon the facts and circumstances of the each case.