An Educated Woman Cannot Be Forced To Go To Work, Woman's Choice To Work Or Stay At Home: BOMBAY HC

Friday, the Bombay High Court emphasised the significance of a woman's choice to work or stay at home, even if she is qualified and educated to work.

Justice Bharati Dangre stated that a woman's educational attainment does not obligate her to work and prevent her from remaining at home.

"Our culture has not yet accepted that the housewife should contribute (towards finances). Working is a choice for women. The fact that she (one of the parties) is a graduate does not preclude her from staying at home "Judge Dangre stated.

"Today I am a judge, but tomorrow I might be at home. Will you say, "I am qualified to serve as a judge and shouldn't be sitting at home"? "The judge inquired.

The Court was hearing a petition for revision filed by the husband in opposition to an order of the family court in Pune requiring him to pay maintenance to his wife, who, according to him, had a stable income.

During the hearing of the petition, the husband's attorney, Advocate Abhijit Sarwate, argued that the family court unfairly ordered the husband to pay alimony despite the wife's employment.

However, the judge was unconvinced and proceeded to comment on the decision of educated women to work or stay at home.

Briefly, the dispute centred on the fact that the couple married in 2010 In 2013, the wife and their daughter started living apart.

In April 2013, she initiated proceedings against the husband and his family under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. She filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights a year later. In addition, proceedings were initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty).

During the domestic violence proceedings, the wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The application was granted, and the judge ordered the husband to pay 5,000 per month to the wife and 7,000 for the child's support.

This order was challenged in a petition filed by the husband's attorney, Ajinkya Udane.

The husband argued that he lacked the resources and funds necessary to defend himself against his wife's persistent litigation.

His primary argument was that the wife had falsely claimed she lacked a source of income, when she was in fact a salaried employee.

The hearing was postponed until the following week at the request of the wife's attorney, who needed time to respond to the petitioner's arguments with rulings.