The Allahabad High Court has held that where a qualified person (wife) 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, then the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Saran and Justice Atul Sreedharan noted the contention of the appellant that the trial court failed to appreciate that the appellant was not currently working, having been removed from the hospital after the filing of the case by the respondent-husband, and that she was entitled to be supported to maintain the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation.
At the same time, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the appellant, being a trained and specialized Gynaecologist, was capable of earning more than the respondent himself in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and that the trial court had rightly dismissed her application under Section 24 on the ground that she was more capable of maintaining herself owing to her qualifications.
The Bench noted that the appellant is a trained Gynaecologist holding a post-graduate degree in M.D. (Gynecology), and is capable of earning handsomely in her field of expertise. The Bench thus rejected the contention that the appellant was not presently working. It further noted that the trial court had found, based on the appellant’s ITRs, that she was earning more than Rs. 31 lakhs per annum.
Briefly, the present appeal was filed by the appellant-wife, Dr. Garima Dubey, an M.D. (Gynaecologist), against the respondent-husband, Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey, a Neurosurgeon. Both parties are residents of Prayagraj. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent-husband.
The appellants were aggrieved by the impugned order dated April 07, 2025, whereby an application for maintenance filed by the wife and the three children under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was rejected in part. Specifically, the application of Appellant No. 1 (wife) under Section 24 was dismissed, while the application under Section 26 for maintenance of the children was allowed, with the respondent undisputedly paying Rs. 60,000/- per month towards the children’s maintenance.
Appearances:
Advocates Akarsh Dwivedi, Mrigendra Singh, and Suvrat Dwivedi, for the Appellant
Advocates Abhishek Tripathi, Firoz Haider, Priya Saxena, and Sanjay Kumar Pal, for the Respondent
