The Delhi High Court in Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray (2026), delivered an important judgment recognising the economic value of homemakers and reaffirming that non-earning spouses cannot be denied maintenance merely because they are educated or capable of employment. The Court upheld the grant of ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife and ₹40,000 per month to the minor child, holding that homemaker contributions must be treated with dignity and fairness.
The judgment highlights the distinction between capacity to earn and actual earnings, rejects the myth of the “idle wife,” and emphasises that maintenance law is grounded in equity and recognition of domestic labour.
Facts of the Case
The parties married in 2012 and lived together until August 2020. The husband worked as a drilling engineer in Kuwait and earned a substantial income in foreign currency. The couple had adopted a minor child.
After matrimonial disputes arose, the husband allegedly deserted the wife and child and returned to Kuwait. The wife filed:
- A maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) seeking ₹2.5 lakh monthly maintenance.
- Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act seeking interim relief.
Initially:
- The Magistrate granted ₹10,000 monthly maintenance for the child.
- Maintenance to the wife was denied.
- The appellate court enhanced maintenance for the child but again denied maintenance to the wife.
However, the Family Court later granted:
- ₹50,000 per month to the wife.
- ₹40,000 per month to the child.
These orders were challenged before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The Delhi High Court examined two primary issues:
- Whether the wife had an independent source of income and was entitled to maintenance.
- Whether the husband’s income was correctly assessed and appropriately apportioned.
Denial of Maintenance by Lower Courts
The Magistrate and appellate court had denied maintenance to the wife mainly because:
- She was educated and able-bodied.
- She had bank transactions indicating financial activity.
- She had taken loans from relatives.
- She had undertaken a makeup artist course.
The High Court rejected this reasoning.
The Court found that:
- Bank deposits were mostly transfers from the husband.
- Loans from relatives do not indicate income.
- Education or skill training does not prove earnings.
The Court held that these factors were wrongly interpreted as proof of financial independence.
Capacity to Earn v. Actual Income
One of the central principles reaffirmed by the Court was that the capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings. The Court observed that maintenance cannot be denied merely because a wife is educated or capable of employment. The wife must actually be earning sufficient income to support herself. The Court held that there was no evidence that the wife had any real income, and therefore, she was entitled to maintenance.
Social Reality of Indian Marriages
The Court recognised the social realities of Indian marriages, observing that many women give up employment after marriage.
The Court noted that:
- Women often leave jobs after marriage.
- They manage households and children.
- They relocate due to their husbands’ employment.
It was held that a husband cannot later argue that the wife should be self-sufficient after encouraging her to remain at home.
This observation reflects a progressive understanding of marital dynamics.
Difficulties in Re-Entering the Workforce
The Court also acknowledged that returning to employment after a long break is not easy. A homemaker who has spent years raising children cannot immediately secure a job comparable to her earlier position. Professional skills may become outdated, and job markets may change.
Therefore, expecting immediate financial independence is unrealistic.
Recognition of Homemaker Contribution
Delhi High Court stated:
The assumption that a non-earning spouse is ‘idle’ reflects a misunderstanding of domestic contribution. 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.
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.
Husband’s Financial Capacity
The Court examined the husband’s financial position in detail.
It found that:
- He was working in Kuwait Oil Corporation.
- He earned approximately ₹5–6 lakh per month.
- He maintained multiple bank accounts.
- He had significant savings and fixed deposits.
The Court held that the husband was a person of considerable means and capable of paying maintenance.
Voluntary Expenses Cannot Reduce Maintenance
The husband argued that his loan EMIs and personal expenses reduced his ability to pay maintenance. The Court rejected this argument.
It held that:
- Only statutory deductions can be considered.
- Voluntary loans cannot reduce maintenance liability.
Maintenance is a primary obligation.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s order and directed:
- ₹50,000 per month to the wife
- ₹40,000 per month to the minor child
The maintenance was made payable from the date of filing of the petitions. The Court also directed the adjustment of the maintenance awarded in parallel proceedings.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray (2026) represents a significant reaffirmation of the legal and social value of homemakers. The Court recognised that domestic labour is essential to family stability and must be respected in maintenance proceedings.
By granting ₹50,000 monthly maintenance to the wife, the Court emphasised that maintenance law is based on fairness, dignity, and recognition of unpaid contributions within marriage.
The judgment clearly affirms that the role of a homemaker carries real economic value and cannot be overlooked. It emphasises that when a marriage ends, the unpaid efforts and sacrifices made within the household must be given due legal recognition and reflected in maintenance decisions.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams