The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman cannot be denied maintenance solely on the ground that she is educated and was previously employed, especially if she was compelled to leave her job to care for a minor child.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while hearing a petition filed by the husband challenging a family court’s interim maintenance order, observed that the duty of caregiving disproportionately falls on the parent with custody. She noted that in the absence of adequate family support, such responsibility limits a parent’s ability to take up full-time employment.

“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,” the Court held.

The husband, Praveen Kumar, had argued that his wife, Pooja Arya, was highly educated and had earlier worked as a schoolteacher, earning ₹40,000–₹45,000 per month, including income from tuition. The wife, however, stated she was unable to continue her job due to the demands of raising their minor son as a single parent and the unavailability of employment opportunities near her residence.

Her counsel submitted that long commuting hours and the absence of nearby job options forced her to quit her teaching career to attend to the child’s needs.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021), the High Court reaffirmed that when an educated woman gives up her career to fulfill her caregiving duties, that factor must be given due consideration in maintenance proceedings.

The Court noted that while the wife had previously worked as a guest teacher, the compelling nature of her caregiving responsibilities justified her decision to stop working. It upheld the family court’s finding that maintenance was not warranted for the period she was employed, but granted thereafter based on the husband's notional income, who is a practicing lawyer.

However, since the family court had not examined the husband’s income affidavit or bank statements, the High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration.

In the interim, the husband has been directed to continue paying maintenance as ordered.

Case Title: Praveen Kumar v. Pooja Arya
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 1373/2024
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Mayank Maini, Mr. Anmol Chadha, Mr. Biman Sethi, Mr. Aryan Sharma, and Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocates