Mere Capacity to Earn Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim, Rules Delhi High Court

In Delhi High Court’s landmark decision in Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray (CRL.REV.P. 718/2024 and connected matters, decided on 16 February 2026), the Court authoritatively reaffirmed that mere capacity or potential to earn cannot be used as a ground to deny maintenance to a wife. The Court clarified that the decisive test in maintenance proceedings is actual earnings and real financial independence, not hypothetical employability based on education or skills.

Deciding a cluster of revision petitions arising out of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), the Court corrected the approach of the Magistrate and the Appellate Court, both of which had denied interim maintenance to the wife on the assumption that she was “able-bodied and capable of earning.”

Factual Background

The parties, Rakesh Ray (husband) and Priti Ray (wife), were married in June 2012, first at Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi and later through Hindu rites in Uttarakhand in February 2013. They lived together in West Bengal and later in Kuwait, where the husband was employed as a Drilling Engineer with Kuwait Oil Company, a government-owned entity.

A male child was adopted by the couple in 2015. In 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties returned to India. Soon thereafter, the husband allegedly deserted the wife and child and returned alone to Kuwait, leading to multiple legal proceedings.

The wife initiated:

1. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) seeking monthly maintenance.
2. Proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, claiming domestic violence and interim monetary relief.

Orders Passed by Courts Below

Magistrate (PWDV Act Proceedings)

The Metropolitan Magistrate granted interim maintenance only to the minor child but denied maintenance to the wife, holding that:

• She was well-educated and able-bodied.
• Bank statements showed frequent transactions.
• She had pursued a make-up artist course and was therefore capable of earning.
• She had allegedly concealed financial details.

Appellate Court (PWDV Act Appeal)

The Additional Sessions Judge enhanced maintenance for the child but again denied maintenance to the wife, primarily on the ground that:

• She had not filed bank statements for the preceding three years as required under Rajnesh v. Neha.
• Certain bank entries allegedly indicated income from Lakme.

Family Court (Section 125 CrPC) (Section 144 BNSS)

In contrast, the Family Court took a more balanced approach and awarded:

• ₹50,000 per month to the wife, and
• ₹40,000 per month to the minor child,

holding that there was no reliable material to show the actual income of the wife, and that even assuming minimal earnings, there was a stark disparity between the spouses’ incomes.

Issues

The Delhi High Court framed the central issues as:

1. Whether the wife had any independent source of income, and if so, whether that disentitled her to maintenance?
2. Whether the husband’s income had been correctly assessed and appropriately apportioned between the wife and the child?

Analysis by the High Court

1. Capacity to Earn v. Actual Earning

The Court strongly criticised the reasoning adopted by the Magistrate and the Appellate Court. It emphasised the settled distinction between “capacity to earn” and “actual earning”, holding that:

“Merely because a wife is capable of earning cannot be a ground to deny maintenance in the absence of proof of actual income.”

The Court noted that:

• Bank entries relied upon by the lower courts represented transfers made by the husband himself for monthly expenses and course fees.
• Payments to Lakme were course fees paid by the wife, not income received by her.
• Borrowing money from family and friends during distress cannot be equated with financial independence.

Thus, the inference that the wife was earning or self-sufficient was found to be factually and legally erroneous.

2. Non-Disclosure of Bank Statements Not Fatal

Rejecting the Appellate Court’s reliance on incomplete bank statements, the High Court held that:

• Prior to August 2020, the parties were living together, and the wife admittedly had no independent income.
• The absence of earlier bank statements did not conceal any income, as none was alleged or shown to exist.
• The Court clarified that procedural directions in Rajnesh v. Neha are meant to aid assessment, not to become technical tools to deny substantive relief.

3. Myth of the “Idle Wife”

A striking feature of the judgment is its rejection of the stereotype of the “idle” non-earning wife. The Court observed that:

• Domestic labour, childcare, emotional support, and household management are economically valuable contributions, even if unpaid.
• A homemaker enables the earning spouse to pursue professional growth.
• To label such contribution as “idleness” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic realities.

The Court held that maintenance law must recognise unpaid domestic work and the opportunity costs borne by women during marriage.

4. Marital Expectations and Career Sacrifice

The Court took judicial notice of the Indian social context where:

• Women often give up or postpone careers due to marriage, relocation, childbirth, or family expectations.
• When relationships break down, husbands cannot suddenly rely on the wife’s educational qualifications to evade maintenance obligations.

It cautioned that expectations within marriage cannot be conveniently disowned during litigation.

5. Difficulty of Re-entering the Workforce

Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court acknowledged:

• Long career breaks reduce employability.
• Skills may become outdated.
• Age, childcare responsibilities, and market competition create real barriers.

Therefore, courts must avoid unrealistic assumptions that a separated woman can immediately become financially self-reliant.

Final Decision and Relief

The Delhi High Court held:

• Denial of maintenance to the wife by the Magistrate and Appellate Court was unsustainable.
• The order of the Family Court granting ₹50,000 to the wife and ₹40,000 to the child was upheld.
• The same quantum was made applicable across proceedings under both statutes to avoid overlap.
• Maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of filing of applications, with adjustment/set-off as per Rajnesh v. Neha.
• Arrears were directed to be cleared within six months.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces a humane and constitutionally aligned understanding of maintenance. By holding that mere capacity to earn cannot defeat a maintenance claim, the Court ensures that maintenance law continues to function as a tool of social justice, protecting spouses who have invested years in marriage and family at the cost of personal economic advancement.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams