Homemaker wife does not sit idle: Delhi High Court says unpaid household labour a factor for maintenance

The Delhi High Court recently held that unpaid domestic work performed by women must be recognised while deciding maintenance claims, observing that a spouse cannot be described as “idle” merely because she does not earn an income.

The dispute arose out of maintenance awarded to a woman and her adopted minor son. The husband argued that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was educated, capable of earning and was “sitting idle.”

Responding to this contention, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma addressed the characterisation of a non-earning spouse as "idle".

"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," held the Court.

The judge further examined the broader issue of how domestic responsibilities are viewed in maintenance adjudication. It stated,

"To describe non-employment as idleness is easy; to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult. These responsibilities do not appear in bank statements or generate taxable income, yet they form the invisible structure on which many families function."

The Court emphasised that unpaid household work enables the earning spouse to carry on professional responsibilities and cannot be ignored in maintenance proceedings.

"The assumption that a non-earning spouse is “idle” reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution. Managing a household, caring for children, supporting the family, and adjusting one's life around the career and transfers of the earning spouse are all forms of work, even though they are unpaid and often unacknowledged."

It reiterated that maintenance law cannot be restricted to proof of monetary income alone and that it must also recognise the contributions made within the domestic sphere during the course of a marriage.

"The law must recognise not only financial earnings but also the economic value of the contribution of the wife within the home and domestic relationship during the subsistence of the marriage," said the Court.

The Court also addressed the impact of marital arrangements on a woman’s employment.

"Where a husband has, either expressly or by conduct, required or expected his wife to give up her employment and assured her that he would take care of the financial needs of the family, he cannot later disown that very understanding and shift the entire burden upon the wife by contending that she ought to now independently sustain herself."

Emphasising the practical consequences of career breaks taken during marriage, the Court observed,

"A woman who has stepped away from her profession due to marriage or family responsibilities cannot be expected to resume employment at the same level, salary, or professional standing merely because the marriage has broken down between the parties after several years."

The case stemmed from three revision petitions challenging interim maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act).

The magistrate had granted maintenance to the minor child but declined to award any to the wife. On appeal, the amount granted to the child was increased, but the denial of maintenance to the wife was upheld.

The magistrate reasoned that the wife was educated, had completed a professional makeup course and had bank transactions indicating financial activity. They also referred to incomplete disclosures of bank accounts and certain payments reflected in her account while denying her maintenance.

On examining the record, the High Court found that the transactions cited against the wife included transfers made by the husband himself, payments towards her course fees and reversed debit entries.

These, the Court held, did not establish any independent source of income.

Clarifying the legal position, the Court emphasised that the mere capacity to earn is not the same as actually earning and cannot by itself be a ground to deny maintenance to a spouse.

On the husband’s financial capacity, the Court noted salary records reflecting overseas employment and monthly earnings exceeding ₹5 lakh in recent years. It held that voluntary financial commitments, such as loan repayments, cannot be used reduce the statutory obligation to pay maintenance.

The family court had fixed interim maintenance at ₹50,000 per month for the wife and ₹40,000 per month for the child. Upholding this assessment, the High Court set aside the denial of maintenance to the wife in the DV Act proceedings and clarified that the total interim maintenance payable would be ₹90,000 per month.

Advocates Deepak Tyagi and Ishaan Seth appeared for the husband.

Advocates Atul Chaubey and Chandan Sharma represented the wife.

[Read Judgement]