Delhi High Court ruled that a healthy man can’t avoid paying maintenance by citing joblessness. Rs 50,000 monthly support upheld for wife and child under Section 125 CrPC.
New Delhi: In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court made it clear that a healthy and able-bodied man cannot escape his responsibility to take care of his wife and child. The Court rejected a husband’s argument that he could not pay maintenance because he was unemployed.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while delivering the verdict, emphasised that the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is to make sure that a dependent wife or child does not suffer from poverty or homelessness during the legal process.
“The provision is a social justice measure and must be interpreted in light of its underlying object – to prevent financial hardship and starvation of the neglected spouse and children,”
said the Court.
ALSO READ: In-Laws Can’t Evict Widow from Matrimonial Home, Rules Kerala High Court
The case was about a man who challenged a family court order that directed him to pay ₹50,000 every month as interim maintenance to his wife and their minor son. The couple had married on 26 May 2017, and their son was born on 23 August 2019.
Later, the wife filed a case under Section 125 of the CrPC, asking for maintenance for herself and the child. She also filed an application seeking interim maintenance.
In her application, the wife stated that her husband and his family treated her cruelly. She claimed that her husband earned over Rs 4 lakh every month through rental income from ancestral properties. She added that she required Rs 2 lakh per month for maintaining herself and the child.
The Family Court, after considering the facts, ordered the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month starting from the date the petition was filed, until further instructions were given.
The husband, however, filed a revision plea in the High Court, arguing that the family court had only relied on the wife’s claims and had not properly checked the facts.
His lawyer said that the Rs 50,000 amount was too high since the husband was currently unemployed and financially dependent on his mother, who was suffering from a stage-three brain tumour.
He also said that the wife was well-educated and capable of earning money on her own. Moreover, she had hidden details about her own finances, including not disclosing a bank account.
His counsel argued that the family court’s judgment was against the principles of natural justice and based on a wrong understanding of the husband’s income and responsibilities.
On the other hand, the state’s lawyer stood by the Family Court’s order. He called the order well-reasoned and fair, stating that Rs 50,000 per month was reasonable considering the lifestyle the woman and child were used to during the marriage.
The government lawyer said that the husband’s claims of being jobless and financially weak were not backed by proper evidence. He pointed out that the husband himself had admitted that his family owned properties that gave rental income.
After listening to both sides, the High Court ruled that interim maintenance is designed to give quick relief to a dependent spouse and minor child who cannot support themselves.
The Court added,
“This court is of the view that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to provide immediate relief to a spouse and minor children who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves. While the right to fair opportunity and adherence to natural justice are essential, it is equally true that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the very purpose of the provision.”
The Court referred to a Supreme Court ruling in Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, where it was stated that it is the husband’s sacred duty to financially support his wife and children.
The top court also said that excuses like unemployment or less income cannot be accepted unless strong proof is given.
ALSO READ: Women’s Day 2025 Special: Key Laws Protecting Women’s Rights in India
The Delhi High Court concluded that the Rs 50,000 amount fixed by the Family Court was suitable, especially because of the standard of living the family had and the needs of the minor child.
The court said,
“This Court finds no reason to interfere with the interim maintenance amount of Rs 50,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court, which appears to be proportionate to the standard of living of the parties and the needs of the minor child,”
As there was no mistake or legal error in the lower court’s order, the High Court dismissed the husband’s plea.
Case Title:
P vs. S
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
