Uncategorized

In a recent and thought-provoking judgment delivered on 19th March 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed an increasingly relevant question for modern society:
Can a highly educated and capable woman claim maintenance simply by stating she is unemployed?

The case involved Megha Khetrapal and her husband Rajat Kapoor. The two married in December 2019 and soon moved to Singapore to begin their new life. However, within a little over a year, the marriage broke down, and Megha returned to India in February 2021, citing allegations of cruelty and financial abandonment.

Facing financial hardship, Megha sought interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, claiming she had no income, no job, and no support except from her retired maternal uncle.

However, the court decided to look beyond her words and examine the larger truth.

---

What the Court Discovered

When the evidence was laid out, it painted a very different picture:

• Megha held a Master’s degree in International Business from a reputed university in Australia.
• She had prior work experience with KPMG Dubai as an Audit Associate.
• She had independently run a business involving import and sale of semi-precious jewelry before her marriage.

The case took a critical turn when WhatsApp conversations between Megha and her mother were placed before the court. In these chats, her mother advised her that taking up a job might hurt her chances of receiving alimony.

This communication suggested Megha was being encouraged not to work, not because she could not find employment, but because remaining unemployed might strengthen her maintenance claim.

This, combined with Megha’s failure to disclose her full educational and professional background, raised serious doubts about her intentions.

---

The Court’s Analysis

The Court emphasized an important principle:

Capability to earn is as important as actual earning.

The Court noted that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to support individuals who, through no fault of their own, are unable to maintain themselves.
It is not meant to reward deliberate inaction, especially when the person has the skills, education, and opportunity to earn a livelihood.

The Judge observed that while a husband has a duty to maintain his wife, the law does not favor someone who chooses to remain idle despite being capable.

In Megha’s case, the Court found prima facie evidence that she was intentionally not seeking employment.

Thus, the Family Court’s decision to deny interim maintenance was upheld.

---

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision sends a strong and timely message:
In today’s world, where women are excelling in every field, the law cannot automatically assume helplessness when a woman claims unemployment.

Where a woman is highly qualified, professionally experienced, and physically able, she is expected to make reasonable efforts to support herself.
Maintenance is not a blanket entitlement. It is support for those who genuinely need it.

This judgment draws a fine but important line between genuine need and strategic unemployment.

---

The Final Word

The Court, while dismissing Megha’s petition, made a significant observation:
It encouraged her to use her skills and education to build her independent future, underlining that empowerment must not remain a slogan but must reflect in action.

Thus, in a society moving toward equality, the expectation is clear —
Education is not just a qualification. It is a responsibility.

---

Key Lesson:

“Maintenance law protects those who are genuinely vulnerable. But when someone is capable of standing on their own, the law expects them to make the effort.”