Maintenance for a professionally qualified wife cannot be stopped automatically if she fails to find a job within a deadline: Delhi High Court

The parties married on 08.07.2010 and have been living separately since January 2019.

The husband is a pilot, and the wife holds a B.Tech. degree.

The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act.

On 07.09.2020, the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) awarded interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000/- per month to the wife, estimating the husband's income at ₹4–5 lakh based on bank credits, while noting the minor son resided with the husband.

Both parties appealed; the Sessions Court upheld the amount but directed the wife to seek employment within one year.

During the revision pendency, the husband’s services with Air India were terminated.

On 18.11.2023, under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, a subsequent order reduced maintenance to ₹15,000/- per month effective from 20.05.2022 due to changed circumstances.

The Court applied Section 20 of the DV Act regarding "monetary relief" that is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living.

It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, establishing that maintenance should neither be a penury-inducing pittance nor an oppressive burden, and must balance the husband's actual income against his liabilities.

For revisional jurisdiction, it followed Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Regarding the "capacity to earn," it applied Shailja v. Khobbanna, which clarifies that the mere capability to earn does not equate to actual earning for the purpose of reducing maintenance.

Regarding Section 25(2), it cited S. Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C., holding that modification of maintenance based on changed circumstances operates prospectively.

The Court found that while the Trial Court misinterpreted a single salary entry from July 2020, the overall assessment of the husband’s income (₹4–5 lakh) was justified by recurring employer credits in his ICICI and Axis bank statements.

The husband's failure to disclose his full income-tax records initially supported this "best judgment" estimate.

The wife’s claim for enhancement to ₹3,38,500/- was rejected as she failed to account for the husband's tax liabilities, variable flying allowances, and the fact that he was solely maintaining the minor son.

Regarding the "career" direction, the Court held that while a court can encourage a qualified spouse to seek work, maintenance cannot be automatically terminated upon the expiry of a time limit if no actual employment is secured.

The Court reconciled the original award with the Section 25(2) reduction by noting that the husband’s financial status had demonstrably collapsed (termination from Air India), but this reduction could only apply prospectively from the date he sought revisional relief or filed the modification application.

It partly allowed the husband’s revision by reducing the maintenance to ₹15,000/- per month for the transition period between the filing of the revision (08.11.2021) and the effective date of the Section 25(2) order (19.05.2022).

The wife’s revision for enhancement was dismissed.

The direction to the wife to seek employment was upheld as a guideline for the MM's future reconsideration, but not as a ground for automatic cessation of relief.