Justice Pratibha Rani dismissed the woman's plea, which had challenged a lower court's order denying her maintenance on the ground that she was well-qualified and working in the past, but had quit her job out of her own free will.
"The additional sessions judge has rightly declined the interim monetary relief to the woman by holding that she was well-educated lady, earning Rs 50,000 per month and had chosen not to work out of her own will though had the capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself," Justice Rani said.
The high court upheld the lower court's order which had declined her maintenance but had asked her husband to pay Rs 10,000 to take care of their child.
Advocate Tarun Goomber appearing for the man, opposed the woman's plea seeking maintenance for herself as well.
The Delhi-based woman told the court that she worked in a private insurance company as an assistant manager but had quit the job as the firm was shifting to Bangalore.
She contended that she did not move to Bangalore to comply with a lower court's order to allow her husband to visit the child.
Goomber, however, contended that she never approached any court to modify the order granting visitation rights to his client.
Opposing the plea for maintenance, he argued that with the passage of time the child is now in school-going age and "thus, it is more convenient for a working mother to be in the job than to sit at home."
Justice Rani dismissed the woman's plea referring to a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement which said, "A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony".
