Qualified Gynaecologist Cannot Claim Maintenance From Neurosurgeon Husband By Choosing Not To Work: Allahabad High Court

"Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24, " Allahabad High Court has dismissed the appeal of a qualified Gynaecologist who sought maintenance pendente lite from her Neurosurgeon husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that a professionally qualified spouse who is capable of earning sufficiently cannot claim maintenance by voluntarily refraining from employment merely to impose a financial burden upon the other spouse.

A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran upheld the trial court's order rejecting the wife's maintenance application, noting that her own Income Tax Returns reflected earnings exceeding Rs. 31 lakhs per annum.

The respondent-husband, a Neurosurgeon practising in Prayagraj, filed a divorce petition against the appellant-wife, an M.D. Gynaecologist. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite for herself, and under Section 26 for the maintenance of their three children — two daughters and a son.

The trial court disposed of the application in part. The application under Section 26 for the children's maintenance was allowed, and the respondent-husband has since been paying Rs. 60,000 per month towards their maintenance without dispute. However, the wife's own application under Section 24 was dismissed, with the trial court finding that her ITRs disclosed income exceeding Rs. 31 lakhs per annum, indicating that she was capable of maintaining herself. Aggrieved by the rejection of her personal maintenance claim, the wife preferred the present appeal before the High Court.

The Court was called upon to determine whether a professionally qualified wife — an M.D. Gynaecologist — who claimed to have lost her employment after the filing of the divorce case, could nonetheless be denied maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that she possesses the capability and expertise to earn sufficiently for herself.

Capability To Earn, Not Actual Employment, Is The Touchstone

The wife's counsel argued before the Court that she was presently not working, having been removed from the hospital after the divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband. It was further urged that she was entitled to be supported by the husband to ensure that she could maintain the same standard of living she had enjoyed before the separation.

The Court rejected both contentions without hesitation.

"Where a qualified person is capable of earning more than enough through the use of her expertise and still refrains from doing so only to impose a burden upon her husband, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24."

The Court found it undisputed that the appellant was a trained Post-Graduate Gynaecologist — a medical specialist in considerable demand, particularly in a state like Uttar Pradesh. The respondent's counsel had specifically urged that a qualified Gynaecologist could earn more than even the Neurosurgeon-husband in such a state. The Court accepted the thrust of this submission, holding that the appellant's claim of current unemployment could not be a basis to award maintenance when her professional qualification equipped her to earn handsomely. The ITRs placed on record, reflecting income of over Rs. 31 lakhs per annum, only reinforced the finding that the wife's decision not to work was a deliberate choice and not a genuine incapacity.

Supreme Court Precedent Distinguished On Facts

The appellant's counsel had relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, (2008) AIR SC 530, in which the Supreme Court had dismissed a husband's appeal against maintenance awarded to a wife under Section 125 CrPC, upholding the wife's entitlement on the finding that she was unemployed and that the husband had sufficient means to maintain her.

The Court distinguished this precedent squarely on facts. In Chaturbhuj, the wife was genuinely unemployed and had demonstrated that the husband had sufficient means. The present case presented an entirely different factual matrix — the appellant was a trained medical specialist capable of independently earning a substantial income. The legal principle underlying Chaturbhuj, which protects a genuinely dependent spouse, had no application to a case where the claimant possessed marketable professional expertise and had demonstrated earnings of over Rs. 31 lakhs annually through her own tax records.

Impugned Order Upheld — Appeal Dismissed

The Court concluded that the trial court's order rejecting the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act could not be faulted. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: April 21, 2026