The Delhi High Court held a husband cannot rely on wife’s inherited property or family gifts to oppose maintenance, stressing her earning capacity. It said, “stridhan or inherited property cannot be treated as income to defeat her claim.”
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband cannot use his wife’s inherited property or gifts from her parents or relatives as grounds to contest her request for maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the evaluation for maintenance should focus on the wife’s current earning capacity and her ability to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, rather than relying on the financial status of her family of origin.
The Court stated,
“This Court is of the view that the stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim,”
ALSO READ: In-Laws Can’t Evict Widow from Matrimonial Home, Rules Kerala High Court
This decision arose from a petition filed by a husband challenging a trial court’s directive for him to pay Rs.50,000 per month in interim maintenance to his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The Court decisively rejected the argument that the wife’s inherited assets, family background, or past financial transactions disentitled her from maintenance.
It clarified that:
- Stridhan, inherited property, gifts, or proceeds from asset sales are not “income”
- Financial support from parents cannot replace the husband’s statutory duty
- Maintenance must be assessed on actual recurring income, not capital assets
The husband argued that his wife’s inherited assets and family gifts indicated she had sufficient means to deny her claim for maintenance. The Court deemed this argument legally unfounded.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that assessing the husband’s financial ability should not be limited to income and assets from regular sources; it should also include earnings and profits from any family-run business in which he has a stake or interest.
The bench remarked,
“This includes profits, dividends, or any other financial benefits accruing from the family enterprise. The rationale is that maintenance is intended to ensure the wife‘s reasonable living standards, and the husband’s capacity to pay encompasses all legitimate sources of income, including those from business ventures, whether owned individually or as part of a family enterprise,”
The couple, married in December 2018, faced disputes that led the wife to approach a trial court, alleging domestic abuse and financial neglect. She requested interim maintenance.
The husband opposed her plea, asserting that he was unemployed and that she had enough financial resources from family properties and assets.
Despite his claims, the trial court ordered him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.50,000 per month, a decision upheld by the sessions court. The husband then appealed to the High Court.
Upon considering the husband’s assertion of having no income, the Court examined his bank statements and income tax records. It revealed regular financial activity in previous assessment years, along with evidence of a lifestyle inconsistent with his claims of financial difficulty.
In response to the argument that the wife was educated and capable of earning her own income, the Court stated her educational qualifications or potential earnings alone cannot justify denying her interim maintenance.
It noted,
“What is relevant for consideration is whether her actual income, if any, is sufficient to sustain herself in a manner befitting the status and lifestyle she was accustomed to during the marriage. On the material presently available, no such conclusion can be drawn in favour of the petitioner-husband,”
The Court dismissed the husband’s claim of the wife being financially self-sufficient or superior.
It concluded,
“The documents produced by the petitioner in this regard pertain largely to the sale of inherited assets, maturity of fixed deposits, or isolated transactions, none of which establish a regular or recurring source of income on the part of the respondent,”
Finding no errors in the trial court’s ruling, the High Court held that the monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000 was reasonable based on the case’s specifics. It clarified that this sum would also cover the wife’s housing costs.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Prashant Mendiratta, Janvi Vohra, Akshat Kaushik, Veenu Singh, Vaishnavi Saxena, and Aamya, while advocate Nawal Kishore Jha represented the respondent.
Case Title: DK (Husband) v. AY (Wife)
Read Attachment