Educated & Independent? Court Rules You Don't Need Maintenance

Professional Status: Both parties are highly specialized medical professionals; the appellant (wife) is an M.D. Gynecologist, and the respondent (husband) is a Neurosurgeon.
Lower Court Ruling: The trial court had previously rejected the wife’s maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but allowed maintenance for their three children.
Child Maintenance: The husband is currently paying ₹60,000 per month for the maintenance of the couple's three children.

Appellant (Wife): Claimed she was entitled to support to maintain the standard of living enjoyed before separation. Her counsel argued she was currently unemployed after being removed from a hospital following the divorce filing.
Respondent (Husband): Argued that as a trained Gynecologist, the wife is highly capable of maintaining herself and could potentially earn more than him in Uttar Pradesh.

Refusal to Work: The Court rejected the argument that the wife was currently not working. It ruled that if a qualified person capable of earning through their expertise refrains from doing so merely to burden their spouse, maintenance can be denied.
Evidence of Income: The Court noted that the trial court's decision was supported by the wife's Income Tax Returns (ITRs), which showed she had been earning more than ₹31 lakhs per annum.
Final Ruling: The High Court found no fault in the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal.

Sajjad Husain LawSajjad Husain Law Associates