Single Mother Who Quit Job For Childcare Entitled To Alimony: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court ruled that a woman who quit her job to care for her child as a single parent was entitled to alimony since it was not a deliberate abandonment of employment. In a ruling on May 13, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that the situation can be seen as the consequence of the primary responsibility to care for the child.

The court declined to overturn a trial court's decision to give a mother and her young son temporary maintenance. The husband contested the trial court's October 2023 judgment requiring him to provide his estranged wife and child with Rs 7,500 in maintenance each month.

However, the high court ordered the man to keep giving the woman the same amount each month and to provide his child Rs 4,500 per month.

“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 said.

ALSO READ: ‘Coffee Breaks, This Break, That Break’: SC Expresses Need For Comprehensive Performance Audit Of Judges

The court ruled that the woman's discontinuation of employment cannot be considered a "voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care."

The husband contested the trial court's ruling, arguing that the woman had a high level of education and has earlier worked as a guest teacher at a Delhi government school, earning around Rs 50,000 including tuition fee.

He asserted that the woman could support herself and the child on her own and that the lawsuit was brought just to bother him.

ALSO READ: Delhi HC Rules 'Extramarital Affair Not Grounds For Cruelty Or Abetment Of Suicide' In Dowry Death Case, Grants Bail

The man said that the family court erred by failing to take into account the fact that the woman left her marital residence voluntarily and did not reestablish her relationship with her husband in spite of a court order. He stated that he would be open to living with her and the young child.

The man went on to say that he worked as an advocate in Haryana, earning between Rs 10,000 and Rs 15,000 per month, and was unable to comply with the trial court's interim maintenance decision.

In contrast, the mother stated that her obligations to the child prevented her from working.

The bench ruled that the man's income certificate was not on file and ordered the family court to make a new decision regarding the request for temporary maintenance and the continuation of the arrangement.