An educated and capable wife may still be granted ad-interim maintenance if she is not presently employed

General
1

Case Note of CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 266/2025, Gurpratap Singh v. Aashna Kaur

Case Title:

Gurpratap Singh v. Aashna Kaur
Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date of Decision: 10 July 2025
Case No.: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 266/2025
Advocates:

  • For Petitioner: Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Ms. Prakriti Anand
  • For Respondent: Ms. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Hatneimawi

Facts of the Case:

  • The petitioner, Gurpratap Singh, and the respondent, Aashna Kaur, were married on 03.04.2022 and separated on 09.04.2023.
  • The respondent filed a petition under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking monthly maintenance.
  • The Family Court awarded ad-interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000/month to the respondent on 09.05.2025.
  • The petitioner, residing in Melbourne, Australia, challenged the said order.

Petitioner’s Contentions:

  1. Highly Qualified Respondent: The respondent holds advanced degrees and has previously held prominent professional roles. Her unemployment is voluntary.
  2. Non-disclosure: The respondent failed to submit complete income details or bank statements with her affidavit, concealing material facts.
  3. Delay in Filing Income Affidavit: The petitioner had sought 15 days to submit an apostilled affidavit from Australia, but the Family Court passed the order before that.
  4. Misuse of Law: Maintenance laws are meant for helpless and financially dependent spouses, not for capable individuals who choose to remain idle.
  5. Disproportionate Award: Considering the petitioner’s financial challenges and Australia’s high cost of living, the ₹1,00,000 maintenance is excessive.
  6. Precedents Cited: Various judgments emphasizing that capable and educated spouses should not be granted maintenance if they can sustain themselves.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  1. Life Circumstances: She moved to Australia after marriage, left her job, and was allegedly abandoned, returning to India in distress.
  2. Current Dependence: She is unemployed, dependent on her parents, and has no immediate means of income.
  3. Petitioner’s Financial Standing: Petitioner has a family business, owns a startup, and is allegedly financially well-off but concealing income details.
  4. Maintenance Justified: The order is temporary and meant to provide basic support until the matter is fully adjudicated.

Court’s Observations:

  • No Current Employment of Respondent: Though qualified, there is no evidence she is currently working.
  • Reasonable Support Needed: Until she finds a job, she is entitled to support from her husband.
  • Ad-interim Nature of Order: The ₹1,00,000 is a temporary relief, not a final determination. A final order will be passed after full consideration of income affidavits from both parties.
  • Cost of Living Argument: The petitioner’s argument about the high cost of living in Australia was acknowledged but considered irrelevant in determining temporary support in Indian proceedings.

Decision:

  • Petition Dismissed.
  • The High Court upheld the Family Court’s ad-interim maintenance order.
  • However, it clarified that this order does not determine the final entitlement and that the Family Court will re-assess based on complete financial disclosures.

Key Takeaway:

An educated and capable spouse may still be granted ad-interim maintenance if they are not presently employed and undergoing marital distress, especially when the other party’s financial status is unclear or undeclared. The temporary nature of maintenance orders ensures that immediate relief does not prejudice the final decision.