The Delhi High Court stated that a working parent’s earning capacity, whether husband or wife with custody of minor children, does not reduce their caregiving responsibilities. The Court stated that fathers’ obligation doesn’t diminish, and mothers shouldn’t be overburdened.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court highlighted that the earning capacity of a working parent whether the husband or wife who has custody of minor children does not diminish their responsibilities as a caregiver.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that this parent continues to carry the weight of both financial and caregiving duties.
The Court stated,
“In such cases, the obligation of the father towards the minor children does not diminish merely because the wife has been forced to shoulder this dual responsibility.”
These remarks were made during a revision petition filed by the husband, aiming to set-aside a judgment from the Special Judge (NDPS) in Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The judge had dismissed his appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and upheld an earlier order mandating the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month Rs.10,000 for each of their three minor children, to be deposited directly into the wife’s bank account.
The husband argued before the High Court that he could not afford the Rs.30,000 monthly maintenance, claiming a monthly income of only Rs.9,000 as a homeopathic pharmacist.
He contended that his wife earned Rs.34,500 a month, which was significantly higher than his earnings.
The High Court was informed that imposing the entire financial responsibility on the husband was contrary to established legal principles, especially given that the wife earned substantially more.
The court noted,
“While deciding petitions for grant of maintenance, courts cannot remain oblivious to the social realities prevailing in society, where financial arrangements within families are often structured in a manner that obscures the true income of a party,”
The bench cautioned that if there were indications of a deliberate understatement of income, a comparative analysis of past and present financial disclosures could raise legitimate doubts about the credibility of a party’s income claims.
The husband’s assertion that the wife’s claim for maintenance despite earning around Rs.34,000 demonstrated a misuse of maintenance laws was outright rejected by the High Court.
The court stressed that this was not a matter of entitlement but rather a demonstration of commitment to their children.
The Court remarked,
“The conduct of the wife herein, who is a working woman, shows that she is compelled to shoulder a dual burden, i.e., of fulfilling her professional obligations alongside her responsibility of taking care of three minor children single-handedly.”
The court further specified that it could not impose the burden of maintaining the family solely on the working mother, nor was there a legal requirement to exhaust her physically and financially while allowing the father to evade his responsibilities.
The Court remarked,
“The law of maintenance, while being applied by a Court of law, cannot be treated as a mere contest between two parties as to who earns less on paper, but requires an overall and holistic assessment as to who is bearing the real burden of upbringing, daily sustenance, and needs of growing children.”
Ultimately, the court concluded that a consolidated maintenance amount of Rs.25,000 per month would adequately serve justice. It acknowledged that the respondent-wife, earning around Rs.34,000 a month, would also contribute to the children’s expenses.
Also Read: Child Custody Laws in India: Legal Rights of Parents| Explained
Even if her income were to be distributed similarly to the husband’s, she would still be likely covering at least Rs.20,000 monthly for their needs.
The court recognized that her involvement in the children’s daily affairs and overall upbringing was invaluable and could not be quantified in monetary terms.
Click Here To Read More Reports On Child Custody