In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court denied maintenance to wife in Vijay Kumar vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal Case under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing her educational qualifications, previous work experience, and her ability to earn.
🧑⚖️ Background:
The case involved Vijay Kumar, who challenged the grant of maintenance to his wife, Harsh Lata Aggarwal, claiming she was capable of maintaining herself. The wife had applied for maintenance during ongoing matrimonial proceedings.
📌 Key Observations:
- The Court noted that Harsh Lata was well-educated, having earned a B.Ed. degree and had previously worked as a teacher.
- She voluntarily left her job and failed to justify why she could not work again.
- Courts emphasized that maintenance is not a means to idle comfort, especially when the person seeking it is qualified and employable.
🏛️ Final Ruling:
The Delhi High Court set aside the lower court’s order that had granted her maintenance.
It ruled that she was not entitled to maintenance as she deliberately chose not to work despite being fit and qualified.
⚖️ Why This Matters:
This ruling reinforces a key legal principle — maintenance is meant for those genuinely unable to maintain themselves, not for those who are qualified but choose not to work. The case sets an example where the court looked at employability, not just marital status, when deciding on financial support.
📜 Citation:
Vijay Kumar vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal, Delhi High Court, decided in 2008.
Case Reference: 2008:DHC:4986
