Legal information notice: this article provides general information and isn't a substitute for advice from a qualified lawyer.
You have a job — maybe even a good one — and now your husband, or his lawyer, is arguing that this alone means you’re not entitled to maintenance. This is one of the most persistent misconceptions in Indian matrimonial law, and courts have addressed it directly, repeatedly. Here’s exactly what the law actually says.
Every maintenance provision — Section 144 BNSS, Sections 24/25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act — uses language like “unable to maintain herself,” not “unemployed.” The Supreme Court has been explicit that this phrase does not require a wife to be destitute, or entirely without income, before she can claim maintenance.
In Shailja v. Khobbanna, the Supreme Court drew a critical distinction: being “capable of earning” and “actually earning” are not the same thing. Simply asserting that a wife is educated, qualified, or theoretically employable is not, on its own, sufficient grounds to deny her maintenance — courts look at her actual income and actual standard of living, not her theoretical earning potential.
Your case should focus on what you actually earn, supported by salary slips, bank statements, or tax filings — not what someone argues you could theoretically earn given your qualifications.
Courts assess whether your current income lets you maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable to what you had during the marriage — a modest salary that leaves you well below that standard supports your claim, even if it’s technically “some” income.
A significant income gap between spouses is directly relevant — courts have awarded maintenance to working wives specifically because their income, while real, was substantially lower than their husband’s.
If you’re not currently working, be prepared to address (if raised) whether this is a genuine circumstance (caregiving responsibilities, health, the job market) rather than a deliberate choice to avoid income — courts have looked at this distinction closely in recent rulings.
The final determination — full maintenance, a reduced amount, or none — reflects the totality of both parties’ actual circumstances, not a single fact like employment status in isolation.
Recent case law shows genuinely two-sided outcomes, and understanding both sides helps set realistic expectations. In Saurabh Srivastava v. State of UP (2025), the Allahabad High Court found a wife earning ₹73,000/month as a software engineer sufficiently self-sufficient and declined to order maintenance. But in numerous other 2025-2026 rulings — spanning High Courts from Chandigarh to Prayagraj to Nagpur to Delhi — courts have expressly rejected the idea that an unemployed but educated wife is automatically “idle” or undeserving, particularly where she can show genuine reasons for not working or where her actual income remains modest relative to her husband’s. The consistent thread across this fast-evolving body of law: courts are looking at the real, complete financial picture on both sides, not applying a blanket rule in either direction.
The Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor (2025) ruling from the Delhi High Court adds an important nuance worth understanding if you’re not currently employed: a wife’s unemployed status can be weighed against evidence that she deliberately isn’t taking a job despite high qualifications and prior work experience. This doesn’t mean every non-working, educated wife loses her claim — it means the specific reasons for not working matter and are worth addressing clearly and honestly in your case, rather than leaving the question unaddressed.
If you’re the one arguing your spouse’s employment should reduce or eliminate her claim, the same standard cuts both ways — you’d need to show her actual income, not assumed earning capacity, genuinely closes the gap to a standard of living comparable to the marriage, not simply that she holds a degree or has worked before.
| Factor | How It's Treated |
|---|---|
| Being 'capable' of earning (but not actually working) | Not sufficient alone to deny maintenance |
| Actual income significantly below husband's | Supports a maintenance claim, even with real employment |
| Deliberately avoiding available, suitable work | Can weaken a claim if genuinely established |
| Income roughly comparable to husband's | Can substantially reduce or eliminate a maintenance award |
The same routes apply as any maintenance claim — Section 144 BNSS before a Magistrate, or HMA-based claims before the Family Court — your employment status is a factor within that process, not a separate proceeding.
Standard maintenance application court fees apply, generally modest. Free legal aid is available through the District Legal Services Authority for those who qualify.
Given how fact-specific and precedent-driven this particular question has become (with genuinely conflicting recent High Court rulings), a family lawyer’s guidance on how to present your specific income and circumstances is particularly valuable here.
Need professional legal help with this?
Find a Family Lawyer on VidyodayFor the full range of maintenance provisions and which one fits your broader situation, see our guide on wife’s maintenance rights. To understand how the actual amount gets calculated, our guide on alimony calculation covers that specifically.
No — courts look at whether your actual income lets you maintain a standard of living reasonably comparable to your marriage, not whether you have any income at all.
This is generally treated as a legitimate reason for reduced or no current income, not deliberate avoidance of work, particularly where the marriage’s arrangement supported this choice.
This argument alone generally isn’t sufficient — courts have been clear that capability to earn more isn’t the same as actually earning it.
This can substantially reduce or eliminate a maintenance claim, since the underlying purpose — addressing genuine need relative to marital standard of living — is less applicable when incomes are comparable.
The same core principle applies to both, though interim maintenance decisions are often made more quickly with less detailed financial scrutiny than a final permanent alimony determination.
This is the more straightforward end of the spectrum — a genuine homemaker with no independent income has a strong basis for maintenance, subject to the same standard-of-living and needs-based assessment.
Yes — either party can seek modification of an existing order if there’s a genuine, material change in financial circumstances on either side.
Yes, in principle — the “unable to maintain himself” standard and the actual-versus-capable-of-earning distinction apply symmetrically where a husband is the dependent spouse seeking support.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. This area of law involves genuinely evolving and sometimes conflicting court rulings — consult a family lawyer for guidance specific to your situation.
