Delhi High Court Rejects 'Idle Wife' Notion, Says Homemaker’s Work Must Count In Maintenance

Dispelling the “myth” of an “idle wife”, the Delhi High Court has observed that the labour of a homemaker enables the earning spouse to function effectively, and it would be “unjust” to ignore her contributions while deciding maintenance.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said a wife’s non-employment cannot be equated with idleness or deliberate dependence. While determining maintenance, the law must take into account not only financial earnings but also the economic value of her contribution to the household and the domestic relationship during the subsistence of marriage.

"The assumption that a non-earning spouse is 'idle' reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contributions. To describe non-employment as idleness is easy; to recognise the labour involved in sustaining a household is far more difficult," the court said in its February 16 judgment.

"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.

“This court is, therefore, unable to agree with any view that equates non-employment of a wife with idleness or deliberate dependence on the husband," it added.

The observations came while the court was considering a plea for maintenance by an estranged wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

A magistrate’s court had earlier declined interim maintenance on the ground that the woman was able-bodied and well-educated but had chosen not to work. The appellate court also granted her no relief.

The couple married in 2012, and it was alleged that the husband deserted the wife and their minor son in 2020.

Before the high court, the husband argued that the wife could not remain "idle" and claim maintenance when she was capable of earning, and said he was already paying for the child’s education.

The court clarified that the capacity to earn and actual earnings are distinct, and settled law makes clear that mere earning capacity is not a valid ground to deny maintenance.

“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 was a flawed approach,” it said.

"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. 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 noted.

It further observed that in Indian society, women are often expected to give up employment after marriage. However, in matrimonial disputes, husbands frequently take the opposite stand, accusing their "well-qualified" wives of deliberately remaining unemployed to avoid paying maintenance.

Such arguments, the court said, should not be encouraged, and the law must ensure that a spouse who has invested years in building the family is not left economically vulnerable.

The judge also recognised that a woman who leaves her profession due to marriage or family responsibilities cannot reasonably be expected to resume work later at the same level of salary or professional standing.

In the present case, the court found no material on record to show any past or current employment or income of the wife and awarded her Rs 50,000 under the domestic violence law.

It also expressed concern that maintenance proceedings often become "intensely adversarial", which rarely serves the long-term interests of either party or their minor children.

The court said mediation, rather than prolonged litigation, offers a more constructive route in matrimonial disputes, allowing space for meaningful dialogue, realistic assessment of the needs and capacities of both spouses, and mutually acceptable solutions.

Adversarial court proceedings, it added, tend to make dialogue difficult, with wives sometimes overstating expenses and husbands understating income or claiming financial incapacity.