The Delhi High Court held that a father cannot avoid paying child maintenance by concealing his true income or citing his wife’s employment. The Court emphasized shared parental responsibility and recognised the dual burden borne by working mothers caring for minor children.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a father cannot avoid providing financial support to his minor children by downplaying his earnings or arguing that the children’s mother is financially independent. The Court emphasized that employment of the mother does not reduce the father’s statutory and moral responsibility, particularly when the mother is also the primary caregiver.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while deciding a revision petition, observed that working mothers often bear an unequal load, balancing professional commitments with day-to-day childcare, which cannot be measured purely in monetary terms.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnized in January 2014, from which three children were born. Following marital discord and allegations of dowry-related harassment and economic abuse, the wife initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking relief for her children.
In December 2023, the Trial Court ordered the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as interim maintenance for the children. This order was later upheld by the Sessions Court in March 2024, prompting the husband to approach the High Court.
Arguments Presented by the Parties
Arguments by the Husband
The petitioner-husband contended that:
- He earned only ₹9,000 per month as a homeopathic pharmacist.
- The wife earned approximately ₹34,500 per month while working at a university.
- He had been allegedly debarred from his parents’ property and was living as a paying guest.
ALSO READ: A Highly Qualified Wife, If Not Working, Cannot Be Denied Maintenance: Kerala High Court
Arguments by the Wife
The respondent-wife argued that:
- She sought maintenance only for the children, not for herself.
- The husband was highly qualified (MBA and Diploma in Pharmacy).
- Despite claims of debarment, the husband continued to work in his mother’s pharmacy and reside in the same property.
- Financial records contradicted the husband’s claim of a meagre income.
Delhi High Court’s Analysis
Concealment of Income
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the husband’s plea of earning only ₹9,000 per month. The Court relied on:
- Income Tax Returns (AY 2020–21 and 2022–23) showing annual income between ₹4.5 lakh and ₹25 lakh.
- Bank statements and credit card usage, which were inconsistent with the claimed income.
“It is difficult to reconcile the possession and usage of a credit card with the claim of earning only ₹9,000 per month.”
The Court also dismissed the claim of parental debarment as illusory.
Working Mother’s “Dual Burden”
Addressing the husband’s reliance on the wife’s income, the Court made strong observations:
“A working mother is compelled to shoulder a dual burden—professional obligations alongside the responsibility of taking care of minor children single-handedly.”
The Court held that the father’s obligation cannot be diluted merely because the mother is employed.
The Court referred to key Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, including:
- Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma – Proportionate contribution of parents
- Rajnesh v. Neha – Mandatory disclosure of income and liabilities
- Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra – Formula for determining maintenance
After re-evaluating the financial capacity of both parties, the High Court conservatively assessed the husband’s monthly income at around ₹40,000. The Court estimated that the overall monthly expenses required for the upbringing of the three children would be approximately ₹45,000.
While noting that the wife earns about ₹34,000 per month, the Court observed that she was already contributing nearly ₹20,000 towards the children’s expenses, in addition to bearing the entire responsibility of their day-to-day care.
Taking these factors into account, the Court held it appropriate to modify the interim maintenance and directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of ₹25,000 per month for the maintenance of the three minor children.
“Accordingly, the interim maintenance is modified from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month.”
The revision petition was disposed of with these directions.
Case Title:
Hitesh Makhija v. Ritu Makhija
CRL.REV.P. 723/2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
