1 hour ago
4
ARTICLE AD BOX
On behalf of the wife, it was argued that she had been removed from her occupation pursuing initiation of the matrimonial quality and was presently without immoderate autarkic root of income. (AI image)
The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed a captious rule successful matrimonial instrumentality that attraction is not a alleviation to promote a spouse to not enactment erstwhile they are capable. The Court has rejected an interim attraction assertion by a highly educated doctor-wife, stating that a spouse afloat susceptible of earning cannot opt for non-working and spot a fiscal load connected their spouse.The determination came successful First Appeal No. 594 of 2025, decided by a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran.Background of the CaseThe quality arose from matrimonial proceedings betwixt 2 highly qualified aesculapian professionals. The wife, a practicing gynaecologist with an M.D. degree, challenged a proceedings tribunal bid which had partially rejected her exertion for attraction nether Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.While the proceedings tribunal had allowed attraction for the 3 children, directing the husband, a neurosurgeon, to wage Rs.60,000/- per month, it refused to assistance attraction to the woman nether Section 24.Aggrieved by this partial rejection, the woman approached the High Court, arguing that she was presently not employed and required fiscal enactment from her hubby to support the aforesaid modular of surviving she had enjoyed during the marriage.
Submissions Before the CourtOn behalf of the wife, it was argued that she had been removed from her occupation pursuing initiation of the matrimonial quality and was presently without immoderate autarkic root of income. It was argued that nether Section 24 of the Act, she was entitled to interim attraction to prolong herself during the pendency of the proceedings.Reliance was besides placed connected the Supreme Court judgement successful Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai to reason that attraction indispensable beryllium granted wherever the spouse is incapable to support herself.On the different hand, the hubby opposed the claim, emphasizing that helium was already paying Rs.60,000/- per period towards the attraction of the children. It was further argued that the woman was a highly qualified aesculapian nonrecreational who had the capableness to gain significantly, adjacent much than the husband, and truthful could not assertion to beryllium dependent.The husband’s counsel submitted that the proceedings tribunal had rightly relied connected the wife’s income taxation returns, which reflected an yearly income exceeding Rs.31 lakhs, thereby demonstrating her fiscal independency and earning capability.Court’s AnalysisThe High Court cautiously examined the factual and ineligible presumption and recovered nary infirmity successful the proceedings court’s decision.At the outset, the Court distinguished the reliance placed connected Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, observing that the said judgement applied to cases wherever the woman was genuinely incapable to support herself. In contrast, the contiguous lawsuit progressive a highly qualified and professionally susceptible individual.The Court noted that the appellant-wife was not lone an M.D. (Gynaecologist) but besides possessed the accomplishment and expertise to gain a important income successful her field. It emphasized that specified nonrecreational qualifications could not beryllium ignored portion assessing entitlement to maintenance.The Court portion rejecting the statement that the woman was presently unemployed, took a steadfast presumption against what it perceived arsenic voluntary non-employment.In a important observation, the Court held that:“Where a qualified idiosyncratic is susceptible of earning much than capable done the usage of her expertise and inactive refrains from doing truthful lone to enforce a load upon her husband, successful specified a concern the Courts tin contradict attraction nether Section 24.”The Court further relied connected the worldly connected record, peculiarly the income taxation returns, which showed that the woman had antecedently earned implicit Rs.31 lakhs per annum.
This, according to the Court, intelligibly established her fiscal capableness and negated her assertion of dependency.Maintenance of Children Not successful DisputeImportantly, the Court noted that the hubby was already complying with his work towards the children by paying Rs.60,000/- per month, and determination was nary quality connected that aspect.Thus, the lone question earlier the Court was the entitlement of the woman to interim attraction nether Section 24, which the Court answered successful the negative.While dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the findings of the proceedings tribunal and declined to interfere with the bid rejecting the wife’s assertion for maintenance.The Court affirmed that the wife, being a highly qualified aesculapian nonrecreational with proven earning capacity, was not entitled to interim attraction nether Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, arsenic she was susceptible of maintaining herself and could not assertion enactment simply by choosing not to work.FIRST APPEAL No. - 594 of 2025Dr Garima Dubey And 3 Others vs Dr. Saurabh Anand DubeyDate of Decision: April 21, 2026Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akarsh Dwivedi, Mrigendra Singh, Suvrat DwivediCounsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Tripathi, Firoz Haider, Priya Saxena, Sanjay Kumar Pal(The writer of this article, Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)
