Unemployed Wife Not “Idle”, Says Delhi High Court While Granting Rs 50,000 Maintenance

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that an unemployed wife cannot be labelled as “idle” while deciding maintenance claims. The observation came in a judgement delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on February 16, 2026.

The Court was hearing a matter concerning maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The dispute arose after a magisterial court and later an appellate court denied interim maintenance to a woman on the ground that she was well-educated and capable of earning.

The couple had married in 2012. It was alleged that the husband deserted the wife and their minor son in 2020. Before the High Court, the husband argued that his wife was choosing to remain unemployed despite being able-bodied and qualified.

Rejecting this approach, the Court made it clear that non-employment cannot be equated with idleness or deliberate dependence. It emphasised that domestic labour must be recognised as real and valuable work while determining maintenance.

“The assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contributions. To describe non-employment as idleness is easy; to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult,” the Court said.

It further observed, “A homemaker does not sit idle; she performs labour that enables the earning spouse to function effectively. To disregard this contribution while adjudicating claims of maintenance would be unrealistic and unjust.”

The Court underlined that the ability to earn and actual earnings are two different concepts. Merely because a woman is capable of earning does not mean she should be denied maintenance.

It noted that in many cases, women step away from careers after marriage due to family responsibilities. Later, when disputes arise, husbands often rely on their qualifications to argue that they should not be granted maintenance.

The Court cautioned against such reasoning. It observed that unpaid domestic work forms the invisible foundation on which families function. Managing the household, raising children, and supporting the spouse’s career are all forms of labour, even if they do not generate income.

In the present case, there was no evidence showing that the wife had any current or past income. Taking this into account, the Court awarded ₹50,000 as maintenance in proceedings under the domestic violence law.

The judgement also addressed the growing trend of maintenance proceedings becoming highly adversarial. It observed that such hostility rarely benefits either spouse or their children.

The Court suggested that mediation may provide a more constructive solution in matrimonial disputes. It pointed out that prolonged litigation often leads to exaggeration of expenses by one side and understatement of income by the other, making resolution difficult.

With this ruling, the High Court reinforced the principle that unpaid domestic labour deserves legal recognition and economic value while deciding maintenance disputes.