Maintenance Claim of ₹3 Lakh Denied, Court Advises Wife to Resume Work
Background: A Sensitive Case of Maintenance and Emotional Loss
In November 2024, a Delhi-based entrepreneur approached our firm after receiving a summons in a maintenance petition filed by his wife before the Saket Family Court.
The wife had sought an interim maintenance of ₹3,00,000 per month, claiming she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her husband for all her living expenses.
However, the matter was emotionally complex. The couple had tragically lost their 7-year-old son to cancer two years earlier — after which the wife, a qualified surgeon, had voluntarily stopped practicing medicine.
Our client was financially well-settled, but he made it clear from the beginning that he did not wish to seek divorce and wanted to continue supporting his wife within reasonable means. His only request was that the maintenance claim should reflect fairness, not excess.
Our Legal Strategy: Realistic Maintenance, Not Punitive Maintenance
Upon reviewing the pleadings and affidavits, our legal team discovered significant details that were crucial to the case:
- The wife owned two residential properties, each fetching a monthly rental income of ₹23,000, totalling ₹46,000 per month.
- She continued to reside in one of the husband’s properties, enjoying full access to household amenities such as groceries, domestic help, a driver, and electricity, all borne by the husband.
- Her income and expenditure affidavit, filed in court, stated that her monthly expenditure was approximately ₹1,00,000, which included luxury and lifestyle expenses, inconsistent with her claim for ₹3 lakh monthly maintenance.
Based on these facts, we framed our core argument around the principle of “reasonable sustenance”, not enrichment.
Key Arguments Advanced Before the Court
Our submissions focused on the following legal and factual points:
- Maintenance is meant to prevent destitution, not provide luxury.
We emphasized that interim maintenance is a measure of support, not a means of financial leverage or parity of lifestyle.
- The wife is a qualified surgeon, capable of earning her livelihood.
We argued that while the loss of a child is emotionally devastating, it cannot justify permanent withdrawal from a professional career, especially when the spouse is well-qualified and able-bodied.
- She already receives ₹46,000 monthly as rental income and enjoys full residential facilities — groceries, servants, and household utilities — provided by the husband.
- Her own affidavit proves her standard of living is sustained.
Her monthly expenditure was shown to be around ₹1,00,000, which was being comfortably met through rental income and in-kind support.
- The maintenance sought (₹3 lakh) was highly disproportionate and not supported by any financial hardship.
Result: Maintenance Application Dismissed — Court Encourages Wife to Resume Profession
After hearing both sides, the Saket Family Court found merit in our submissions and declined to grant interim maintenance to the wife.
The Court categorically observed that the wife, being a qualified medical professional, had voluntarily chosen not to work, and she possessed independent income sources through rental properties.
In a balanced and empathetic observation, the Court further stated that:
“The applicant is advised to resume her medical profession and earn her own livelihood. Maintenance is meant to sustain, not to substitute for self-reliance.”
This pragmatic and legally sound order not only protected our client from an unjustified financial burden but also reaffirmed the principle that maintenance is not a tool of enrichment, it is a safeguard against genuine need.
Key Takeaway: Maintenance Must Reflect Need, Not Greed
This case demonstrates that maintenance under matrimonial law must be guided by need, qualification, and capacity to earn, not by financial status alone.
Courts are increasingly recognizing that educated and professionally capable spouses cannot remain idle by choice and simultaneously seek high maintenance.
Our firm takes pride in ensuring that justice in maintenance cases remains equitable, balancing compassion with logic — ensuring that support is granted where necessary, but not exploited where unjustified.