NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held a woman leaving her job to take care of her child as a single parent wasn't voluntary desertion of work and she was entitled to alimony, news agency PTI reported.
In an order passed on May 13, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that such a situation must be seen as a result of the parent’s overriding responsibility towards the child.
The court accordingly dismissed a plea to set aside a trial court’s order that had awarded interim maintenance to the woman and her minor son.
The husband had challenged the October 2023 order of the trial court, which directed him to pay Rs 7,500 per month each to his estranged wife and their child.
However, the high court upheld the order, directing the man to continue paying the same amount to the woman, and contribute an additional Rs 4,500 per month towards the child’s maintenance.
“It is well settled that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support to take care of the child while the mother is at work,” the court observed.
Therefore, the bench held that the woman’s decision to stop working cannot be interpreted as “voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care”.
The man argued that his wife was highly educated and had previously worked as a guest teacher at a Delhi government school, earning between Rs 40,000 and Rs 50,000 per month, including tuition fees. He contended she was capable of earning a livelihood for herself and their child and alleged that the maintenance case was filed merely to harass him.
He also claimed the woman had left their matrimonial home voluntarily and had not reconciled with him despite a court directive. He told the court he was willing to live with her and their child.
The man further submitted that he was practising as a lawyer in Haryana, earning only Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000 per month, and was unable to comply with the interim maintenance order issued by the trial court.
The woman, in contrast, stated that she was unable to continue working due to her caregiving responsibilities. She argued that her previous employment should not be used to deny her rightful claim to maintenance. Given her long commuting hours and lack of job opportunities near her residence, she said, she had no choice but to give up her teaching career.
The court found her explanation “reasonable and justified”.
Noting that the man’s income certificate was not placed on record, the high court directed the family court to re-examine the interim maintenance plea afresh. In the meantime, the current arrangement of payments would continue, it said.
In an order passed on May 13, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that such a situation must be seen as a result of the parent’s overriding responsibility towards the child.
The court accordingly dismissed a plea to set aside a trial court’s order that had awarded interim maintenance to the woman and her minor son.
The husband had challenged the October 2023 order of the trial court, which directed him to pay Rs 7,500 per month each to his estranged wife and their child.
However, the high court upheld the order, directing the man to continue paying the same amount to the woman, and contribute an additional Rs 4,500 per month towards the child’s maintenance.
“It is well settled that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support to take care of the child while the mother is at work,” the court observed.
Therefore, the bench held that the woman’s decision to stop working cannot be interpreted as “voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care”.
The man argued that his wife was highly educated and had previously worked as a guest teacher at a Delhi government school, earning between Rs 40,000 and Rs 50,000 per month, including tuition fees. He contended she was capable of earning a livelihood for herself and their child and alleged that the maintenance case was filed merely to harass him.
He also claimed the woman had left their matrimonial home voluntarily and had not reconciled with him despite a court directive. He told the court he was willing to live with her and their child.
The man further submitted that he was practising as a lawyer in Haryana, earning only Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000 per month, and was unable to comply with the interim maintenance order issued by the trial court.
The woman, in contrast, stated that she was unable to continue working due to her caregiving responsibilities. She argued that her previous employment should not be used to deny her rightful claim to maintenance. Given her long commuting hours and lack of job opportunities near her residence, she said, she had no choice but to give up her teaching career.
The court found her explanation “reasonable and justified”.
Noting that the man’s income certificate was not placed on record, the high court directed the family court to re-examine the interim maintenance plea afresh. In the meantime, the current arrangement of payments would continue, it said.
You may also like
21-day 'biggest-ever op' leaves 31 Maoists dead
BJP in damage-control mode after Colonel row
The world's 'most dangerous' country is in Africa with Brits warned not to travel
Truck Loaded With Logs Of Wood Confiscated In MP's Chhatarpur
M25 recap: Traffic chaos as major motorway closed with tanker overturned
