In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that a woman who relinquishes her employment to provide care for her child is entitled to alimony, clarifying that such a decision does not constitute voluntary unemployment. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in an order issued on May 13, 2025, stated that this situation should be regarded as a direct consequence of the "paramount duty" to look after the child.
The court's decision came as it rejected a petition seeking to overturn a trial court's order that granted interim maintenance to a woman and her minor son. The husband had contested the trial court's October 2023 directive, which mandated him to pay ₹7,500 monthly to both his estranged wife and child. The High Court upheld the order, instructing the man to continue providing the same monthly sum to his former wife and ₹4,500 per month for their child.
The High Court emphasized that caregiving responsibilities for a minor child disproportionately affect the parent with custody. This often curtails their capacity to engage in full-time employment, particularly when there is an absence of familial support to assist with childcare while the parent is working. Consequently, the court's verdict emphasized that the woman's cessation of employment should not be interpreted as a "voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care".
The husband had argued against the trial court's order, asserting that the woman was highly educated and had previously been employed as a guest teacher in a Delhi government school, where she earned between ₹40,000 and ₹50,000 per month, including earnings from private tutoring. He contended that she was capable of supporting herself and their child, and that the alimony case was filed to harass him. He further claimed that the family court had erred by not considering that the woman had left their home of her own accord and had not attempted to reconcile, despite a court order. He also stated that he was willing to live with her and their child. The man also argued that he was earning only between ₹10,000 and ₹15,000 monthly as an advocate in Haryana, making it difficult for him to comply with the interim maintenance order.
Conversely, the woman maintained that she was unable to work due to her childcare obligations. The court accepted the woman's argument, deeming her explanation "reasonable and justified". The High Court also noted that the man's income certificate was not officially recorded. It directed the family court to reassess the interim maintenance plea, with the existing arrangement remaining in effect until a new decision is reached.
It is important to note that in a separate case earlier this year, the Delhi High Court took a different stance, emphasizing that a well-educated wife with work experience should actively seek employment and cannot simply rely on her husband for maintenance. In March 2025, the court rejected a maintenance plea from a qualified woman with a master's degree from Australia and work experience in Dubai, stating that the law aims for equality and does not promote idleness. The court noted that WhatsApp conversations suggested the woman was deliberately remaining unemployed to strengthen her claim for maintenance.
