Unemployed wife not idle, unjust to disregard her labour: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has decisively rejected the notion of the “idle wife,” emphasising that a homemaker’s unpaid labour is essential to the functioning of the earning spouse and must be recognised when deciding maintenance, in a landmark judgment delivered on February 16.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a wife’s non-employment cannot be equated with idleness or deliberate dependence. The court underscored that when adjudicating maintenance claims, the law must factor in not just financial earnings but also the economic and domestic contributions of a spouse during the marriage.

“The assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contributions. 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 stated.

The ruling came while hearing a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, involving a woman who had been denied interim maintenance by both a magisterial court and the appellate authority on the grounds that she was well-educated, able-bodied, and had chosen not to seek employment.

The couple, married in 2012, had been estranged since 2020 after the husband allegedly deserted his wife and their minor son. The husband argued that the wife, being capable of earning, could not claim maintenance, asserting that he was already covering the child’s educational expenses.

Rejecting this argument, the high court clarified that capacity to earn and actual earnings are distinct concepts. The court emphasised that denying maintenance solely because a wife could potentially earn was a flawed interpretation of the law.

“Women who can and are willing to work should be encouraged, but the denial of maintenance on the sole ground that she is capable of earning and should not remain dependent upon her husband is legally unsound,” Justice Sharma noted.

The court highlighted the extensive but often invisible work performed by homemakers, including managing the household, caring for children, supporting the family, and adjusting to the career and transfers of the earning spouse. These contributions, though unpaid and absent from bank statements, form the backbone of family life.

The judgment also addressed societal expectations that women give up employment after marriage, noting that some husbands exploit this norm to deny maintenance to educated wives by alleging voluntary idleness. The court categorically rejected such positions, stating that the law must protect spouses who have invested time, effort, and years into building the family from being left economically stranded.

Further, the court acknowledged that a woman who stepped away from her career due to marriage or family responsibilities cannot be expected to later resume employment at the same professional level or salary.

In the present case, as there was no evidence of the wife’s past or present earnings, the court awarded her Rs 50,000 in maintenance under the domestic violence law.

The court also expressed concern over how maintenance proceedings often become “intensely adversarial,” rarely serving the long-term interests of either party or their children. Justice Sharma suggested that mediation, rather than protracted litigation, offered a more constructive path, providing space for realistic dialogue, fair assessment of needs, and mutually acceptable solutions.

“Court proceedings make initiation of dialogue difficult, and in contested cases, the wife may overstate her monthly expenses while the husband understates his income. Mediation offers a better framework for resolution,” the judgment added.

This ruling reinforces the principle that domestic labour carries tangible economic value and that homemakers are entitled to maintenance, regardless of their employment status, setting an important precedent in matrimonial law.

With PTI inputs