The Delhi High Court held that a husband cannot rely on voluntary early retirement to avoid paying maintenance to his estranged wife and their children. The court said financial responsibility continues despite retirement and must be fulfilled fully.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband cannot use voluntary early retirement to avoid paying maintenance to his estranged wife and their children.
Justice Amit Mahajan heard a challenge by a man who argued that the family court had overestimated his income when determining the maintenance he must provide.
The man said he had taken early retirement and now earned little from his current work as a small-scale farmer.
The Court, however, doubted his assertion that his agricultural land produced no income despite his claimed efforts.
Justice Mahajan noted that, just as some women may leave employment to strengthen maintenance claims, “quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well.
It appears to be implausible that the petitioner (husband) would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income.
As it is a normal tendency of the parties to not disclose their true income in matrimonial disputes, the Courts are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning (Ref. Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde,” and emphasized that an able-bodied man must support his wife and children according to his real earning capacity.
The bench further observed that government employees commonly take roles in the private sector after voluntary retirement and that the petitioner, being fit and capable, cannot evade his fundamental duty to support his family by asserting he has no income beyond a pension.
The Court stated,
“The petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family,”
The High Court dismissed the man’s revision petition against the family court’s maintenance order.
The family court had initially directed monthly maintenance of ₹8,300 each for the wife and two children, later increasing it to Rs.10,000 each for the wife and the daughter after the son reached majority, with a 10% enhancement every two years.
In his petition, the husband claimed he had not neglected his family and that his wife lived separately by choice. He also asserted that the wife received rent income and therefore did not need maintenance, and that his own financial position was overstated because he now relied on a modest pension and limited agricultural earnings.
The High Court found these arguments unconvincing. Although the couple had been living apart since 2013, the wife had consistently alleged cruelty and harassment circumstances under which separation does not bar a maintenance claim.
The court rejected the suggestion that the wife had adequate independent rental income, noting no supporting evidence; available records indicated only nominal rent, insufficient to sustain her and the children.
While the High Court pointed out an error in how the family court addressed support for the man’s mother, it saw no reason to alter the overall maintenance award and therefore dismissed the petition.
Advocates Gurpreet Singh and Vaishnavi Vashishta represented the petitioner.
Advocates Deepak Garg, Mohan Singh, Sachin Kumar and Vishakha Deswal appeared for the petitioner’s wife and daughter.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
