“Housework Is Real Work”: Delhi HC grants maintenance to non-earning educated wife
Non-working wife entitled to support despite earning Capacity: Delhi HC
Domestic Labour Cannot Be Called ‘Idleness’:
Harvinder Kaur
New Delhi, February 20, 2026: In a significant judgment underscoring the economic value of domestic work, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife cannot be denied interim maintenance solely because she is educated or capable of employment.
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that running a household and caring for a child are meaningful contributions that cannot be dismissed as inactivity merely because they do not generate taxable income. The Court stressed the legal distinction between having the ability to earn and actually earning enough to sustain oneself.
The case involved matrimonial disputes between a husband employed in Kuwait and a wife residing in India with their minor child.
After the husband resumed work abroad in 2020, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, seeking financial support.
Earlier, a Magistrate had granted maintenance for the child but declined relief to the wife. An appellate court later enhanced the child’s maintenance but maintained the refusal regarding the wife. Separately, the Family Court awarded maintenance to both the wife and the child under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Reviewing the husband’s financial disclosures, the High Court noted that he earned between USD 5,000 and 6,400 per month—equivalent to approximately ₹4–5.3 lakh monthly—and possessed substantial savings, including fixed deposits exceeding ₹1 crore.
The Court rejected the argument that the wife’s educational qualifications or incomplete bank disclosures were grounds to deny her support. It also clarified that money transferred by the husband for household expenses could not be treated as proof of the wife’s independent income.
Addressing the husband’s contention that his EMIs and personal financial commitments should reduce his liability, the Court held that only mandatory statutory deductions may be considered while assessing maintenance.
Voluntary loans and investments cannot dilute the legal responsibility to maintain a dependent spouse and child.
Setting aside the earlier denial of interim maintenance under the PWDV Act, the High Court directed that ₹50,000 per month be paid to the wife and ₹40,000 per month to the minor child.
To prevent duplication, the Court harmonised the relief granted under both statutes and reduced the previously enhanced ₹60,000 for the child to ₹40,000 for uniformity. Arrears are to be cleared within six months from the date of filing of the petitions.
While clarifying that the observations pertain only to interim relief, the Court also advised the parties to explore mediation, particularly in matters involving the welfare of a minor child.