The Delhi High Court directed a husband to provide maintenance to his wife and daughter. It emphasized that the custody of one child does not exempt him from supporting his wife and the child living with her.
In directing the husband to provide maintenance to his wife and daughter, the Delhi High Court stated that the mere circumstance of one child being in the husband’s custody does not exempt him from his responsibility to support the wife and the minor child who lives with her.
In a revision petition contesting the Family Court’s decision on the husband’s income assessment and the interim maintenance order of Rs.20,000 per month to be paid to the wife and their minor daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
A Single-Judge Bench led by Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., modified the initial order, reducing the interim maintenance to Rs.17,500 per month for both the wife and the minor daughter.
The Court determined that having custody of one child does not lessen the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife and the other child living with her under Section 125 CrPC.
It stated,
“Mere fact that one child is in the custody of the petitioner-husband cannot, by itself, be a ground to absolve him of his obligation to maintain respondent no.1-wife and the minor child residing with her. The responsibility of maintenance does not stand divided merely because each parent has custody of one child.”
The petitioner-husband and respondent 1-wife are legally married with two children a son and a daughter.
The son is under the husband’s custody, while the daughter resides with the wife. Due to marital discord, they have been living separately since January 2021. The wife claimed she left the marital home due to physical abuse and cruelty and stated that she moved to a rented place in February 2021, paying Rs.7,000 in monthly rent.
Respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC requesting maintenance of Rs.75,000 per month for herself and Rs.50,000 for their minor daughter. She alleged that the husband owned properties in Munirka that generated rental income, had another flat, was involved in property dealings, and was also employed by the MCD on a contractual basis.
The husband, however, denied all allegations, claiming he owned no properties, had no rental income, and was earning only about Rs.13,500 monthly from his job with the MCD. He further asserted that his wife was earning Rs.50,000 a month from freelancing at a beauty parlour.
Upon reviewing income and expenditure affidavits as well as bank statements, the Family Court concluded that the husband’s declared expenses exceeded his stated income.
It found that the “withdrawal pattern does not tally with pattern of expenditure claimed,” assessing the husband’s income to be not less than Rs.60,000 per month, which led to an interim maintenance award of Rs.20,000 per month for the wife and minor daughter.
The Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are designed to provide immediate financial relief and to prevent destitution, noting that at the interim maintenance stage, a full trial is not necessary.
It highlighted that a husband’s duty to support his wife and minor children, when they cannot support themselves, is firmly established in law. This obligation arises from both Section 125 and broader social and constitutional goals aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution.
Moreover, the Court highlighted that the husband’s custody of one child did not excuse him from the responsibility to maintain the wife and the minor child with her. While this custody was considered relevant for determining the maintenance amount, it did not cancel the statutory obligation.
Regarding income, the Court found that the Family Court acted appropriately, conducting a thorough review of the husband’s affidavits and bank statements. It noted that the claimed expenses of the husband exceeded his professed income, even before his own living costs.
The Court observed that frequent, unexplained transactions in his bank statements, including payments to fuel stations and other commercial outlets, were at odds with the claimed income of Rs.13,500 per month.
It also affirmed the Family Court’s reliance on evidence of property dealings, acknowledging that in cases involving unregulated sectors, the Court is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions based on circumstantial evidence, spending patterns, and lifestyle indicators.
Approaching the situation with moderation, the Court reassessed the husband’s income for interim maintenance purposes to Rs.50,000 per month, considering his obligation to also support his son.
Consequently, it modified the prior order, directing him to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.17,500 monthly as interim maintenance to the wife and minor daughter, effective from the date the application was filed, after accounting for any amounts already disbursed.
Advocate L. K. Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Rajiv Shrivastava represented the Respondent.
Case Title: A v. B, CRL.REV.P. 409/2024 & CRL.M.A. 9309/2024
Read Attachment