The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband cannot deny maintenance after securing divorce on grounds of his wife’s mental illness, citing her education. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma enhanced maintenance, considering his high income as a Dubai-based Chartered Accountant.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has determined that a husband who obtains a divorce by proving his wife’s mental illness cannot later avoid his obligation to provide maintenance by claiming that she is educated and capable of supporting herself.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma pointed out that such contradictory claims from the husband are legally indefensible. As a result, the Court increased the maintenance amount to be paid to the wife, taking into account the husband’s substantial income as a Chartered Accountant based in Dubai. The Court also dismissed a separate petition from the wife regarding the calculation of arrears.
Case Background
The Court was reviewing two revision petitions submitted by the petitioner (the wife) against the respondent (the husband). The couple married in 1999, and in 2004, the wife was granted maintenance of Rs 3,000, which was later increased to Rs 6,000 by mutual consent in 2005. In 2008, the husband received a decree of divorce, citing “cruelty and insanity,” specifically noting that the wife suffered from Schizophrenia. After the divorce, the husband remarried and has a daughter.
In 2011, the wife filed a petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to increase her maintenance amount. On July 12, 2017, the Principal Judge of the Family Courts in the East District raised the maintenance to Rs 9,000 per month effective from the date of her application (January 13, 2011) and to Rs 15,000 per month from the date of the order.
The wife challenged this decision in CRL.REV.P. 950/2017, seeking a further increase. She also filed CRL.REV.P. 295/2021, contesting an April 6, 2021 order from an execution petition where the Family Court concluded that the husband had settled the arrears, rejecting her claim that the enhanced amount was “in addition” to previous maintenance.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the maintenance awarded was grossly inadequate, given that the respondent earns over Rs 6 lakhs per month as a Chartered Accountant in Dubai. They highlighted that the petitioner remains unemployed due to her Schizophrenia and relies on her parents for support.
The counsel contended that the husband had taken “mutually destructive stands” by claiming insanity as grounds for divorce while simultaneously arguing that she could earn a living.
On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel claimed the petitioner possesses an Advanced Diploma in Computer Applications and had been employed before marriage. The respondent asserted that he faces increased financial obligations, including a second wife, a school-going daughter, and elderly parents, in addition to the high living costs in the UAE.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Mutually Destructive Stands on Wife’s Capacity to Earn
The High Court firmly dismissed the husband’s claim regarding the wife’s ability to earn based on her educational qualifications. The Court pointed out that the husband obtained a divorce specifically on the grounds of the wife’s mental health condition (Schizophrenia).
Justice Sharma stated:
“If the petitioner’s mental health condition was accepted by the court as a valid ground for dissolution of marriage, it is neither fair nor reasonable to expect her to independently maintain herself merely on the basis of her educational qualifications. Mental illness may substantially impair a person’s ability to secure and retain regular employment… A husband who has secured divorce by relying upon the wife’s mental condition cannot thereafter evade his statutory obligation by contending that she possesses the qualification and the capability to earn. Such a plea is clearly untenable and is accordingly rejected.”
Income and Voluntary Deductions
The Court assessed the respondent’s financial situation, noting his earnings in Dubai. While recognizing the high cost of living abroad, and referring to Bindu Chaudhary v. Deepak Suga, the Court maintained that voluntary financial commitments, such as loan repayments, cannot absolve the statutory duty to maintain a spouse. The Court reiterated that maintenance should be calculated based on “free income” rather than income remaining after voluntary deductions, concluding that even after reasonable deductions, the respondent had a considerable surplus.
Parental Support Immaterial
Rejecting the argument that the wife’s parents are financially stable, the Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, stated:
“The obligation to maintain a wife under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. is personal to the husband and cannot be diluted on the basis of the financial capacity of the wife’s parents.”
Interpretation of the 2017 Order
Concerning the second petition (CRL.REV.P. 295/2021), the Court evaluated the Family Court’s 2017 order. It upheld the Family Court’s interpretation that the directive to pay Rs 9,000 per month constituted a substitution for the earlier amount, rather than an additional payment. The Court characterized the petitioner’s attempt to reinterpret the order as “frivolous” and an effort to “reopen settled issues.”
Decision of the Court:
The High Court concluded the petitions with the following directives:
- Enhancement Allowed: In CRL.REV.P. 950/2017, the Court determined that the existing maintenance of Rs 15,000 was insufficient and increased it to Rs 20,000 per month, effective from July 12, 2017.
- Date of Enhancement: The Court supported the Family Court’s ruling to grant the increase from the date of the fresh application (January 13, 2011), rather than from the earlier dismissed application of 2007.
- Execution Petition Dismissed: CRL.REV.P. 295/2021 was dismissed, and the Court imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition based on a misinterpretation of a clear judicial order.
CASE TITLE: Preeti Sharma v. Anuj Sharma CRL.REV.P. 295/2021
READ ATTACHMENT: