Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a first appeal filed by the appellant wife against the order of the trial court partly rejecting their application for maintenance, the Division Bench of Atul Sreedharan and Vivek Saran, JJ., dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant-wife, being an MD (gynaecologist), was fully capable of maintaining herself and thus not entitled to maintenance under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), reaffirming that a qualified wife is not entitled to maintenance where she is able to sustain herself.
Background
The respondent husband, a neurosurgeon, filed a divorce petition against the appellant-wife, a qualified gynecologist. The wife along with their three children had filed an application at the trial court seeking maintenance under Sections 24 and 26 HMA. The trial court rejected the application under Section 24 but allowed maintenance of Rs 60,000 per month for the children under Section 26, which the husband was paying. Aggrieved, the wife preferred the present appeal. The wife had contended that she is not working as she was removed from the hospital after filing of the case by the respondent-husband
Analysis and decision
The Court noted that the appellant is a trained Gynecologist being a Post Graduate possessing a degree in M.D. (Gynecology) and is capable of earning handsomely in her line of expertise, and therefore rejected the contention of the appellant that she is presently not working. The Court observed that,
“Where a qualified person 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, in such a situation the Courts can deny maintenance under Section 24.”
The Court noted that the trial court had relied on the wife’s income tax returns, which reflected earnings of more than Rs 31 lakhs per annum and rejected the application under Section 24 HMA, and that under these circumstances the impugned order cannot be faulted and thus, dismissed the appeal.
[Dr Garima Dubey v. Dr Saurabh Anand Dubey, FAPL No. 594 of 2025, decided on 21-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellants: Akarsh Dwivedi, Mrigendra Singh, Suvrat Dwivedi
For the respondent: Abhishek Tripathi, Firoz Haider, Priya Saxena, Sanjay Kumar Pal
