The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband cannot avoid his legal duty to maintain by citing his wife’s employment status, emphasizing that the obligation depends on her financial independence, not mere employability.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a husband’s obligation to provide maintenance to his wife and children is not conditional on the wife’s employment status, but on whether she has sufficient independent income to sustain herself and the child in accordance with their standard of living.
The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a man challenging an order directing him to pay ₹12,000 monthly interim maintenance to his wife and their two minor children.
The matter came before the Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, who was hearing a revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The Petitioner (husband) had contested an earlier decision of the Trial Court awarding interim maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which the Appellate Court later upheld.
Despite the husband’s appeal, the High Court found no error in the lower courts’ orders, emphasizing that the filing of an appeal or revision petition does not automatically stay the obligation to pay maintenance.
Court’s Observation
Justice Narula observed:
“The judicial precedents hold that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his statutory duty to maintain his wife and child by merely asserting her employability or his own limited means. The obligation of the husband is not contingent on the wife’s employment status, but on whether she has sufficient independent income to maintain herself and the child in a manner commensurate with their status.”
The Court further underlined that interim maintenance serves as a provisional measure to ensure the basic sustenance of the dependent spouse and children during the pendency of litigation. It does not determine the final rights of the parties.
ALSO READ: Fired Employees Must Return Company Property, No Excuses Allowed: Delhi High Court
Background
The Petitioner and the Respondent were married under Muslim rites in Delhi and had two children. Following marital discord, they began living separately. The wife, who retained custody of the children, filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act seeking interim maintenance.
The Trial Court, after examining the income affidavits and conducting an enquiry through the Protection Officer, found discrepancies in the husband’s statements. While the husband claimed to earn ₹8,000 per month as a helper, the wife alleged that he was engaged in business, earning approximately ₹2 lakh monthly.
The enquiry revealed that the address given by the husband appeared residential in nature, suggesting a misrepresentation of his employment and financial status.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench upheld the Trial Court’s approach as balanced and legally sound, noting that:
“Where income is not fully disclosed or documentary proof is incomplete, courts are not expected to adopt a purely arithmetical method but may apply reasonable inference based on lifestyle, standard of living, and surrounding circumstances.”
Given the available evidence, the Court found the awarded amount of ₹12,000 (₹4,000 each for the wife and two children) to be minimal and barely sufficient for basic sustenance.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vijay Kinger, Roopa Nagpal and Hemant Kumar
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla
Case Title:
RUKSHAR HUSSAIN versus STATE & ANR
CRL.REV.P. 210/2018, CRL.M.A. 4612/2018
READ ORDER