Husband’s Obligation To Maintain Wife Not Contingent On Her Employment Status But On Whether She Has Sufficient Income: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed against an order dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner (husband) against the order of the Trial Court, awarding monthly interim maintenance of Rs 12,000 to the Respondent (wife) and their 2 minor children.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula asserted, “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. This position was duly acknowledged by the Appellate Court in the impugned order. Taking note of the Petitioner’s failure to comply with the directions for payment of interim maintenance, the Appellate Court rightly observed that the mere filing of an appeal or revision petition does not, in itself, operate as a stay or justify the deferment of maintenance payable to the wife and children.”

Advocate Vijay Kinger represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner married the Respondent's wife as per Muslim rights and ceremonies at Delhi. From the said marriage, two children were born, who are presently in the custody of the Respondent wife. Following marital discord, the parties started living separately. A complaint was filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the pendency of the complaint, she filed an application claiming interim maintenance for herself and her minor children. The application was decided by the Trial Court by ordering the husband to pay maintenance to the wife. The husband’s appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner husband approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the impugned orders, the Bench noted that the Trial Court had adopted a reasoned and balanced approach in determining interim maintenance, having regard to the income affidavits filed by the parties and after conducting appropriate verification. A perusal of the Trial Court’s order revealed that the Petitioner claimed to be employed as a helper earning a monthly income of Rs 8,000, but the respondent wife alleged that the Petitioner was engaged in business and earning approximately Rs 2 lakh.

On an enquiry, the Protection Officer found that the Petitioner was present at the address disclosed by the wife, whereas the address provided by the Petitioner was found to be residential in nature. Based on this verification, the Trial Court concluded that the Petitioner had sought to misrepresent material facts in an attempt to evade his maintenance obligation. As per the Bench, the approach adopted by the Trial Court, in granting interim maintenance of Rs 12,000, was in accordance with established legal principles governing the determination of interim maintenance.

“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 the overall standard of living, lifestyle, and surrounding circumstances of the parties. The underlying rationale is that where direct proof of income is unavailable, judicial estimation becomes necessary. Accordingly, based on the material on record and the financial positions of the parties, the Trial Court rightly awarded interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- each to Respondent No. 2 and her two minor children. In fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, the total amount of ₹12,000/- awarded for three individuals is minimal and barely sufficient to ensure basic sustenance”, the order read.

Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench asserted, “It bears emphasizing that an order of interim maintenance is a provisional measure designed to safeguard basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings. It neither determines the parties’ ultimate rights nor precludes a fresh evaluation upon full evidence at the final stage.”

Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 210/2018)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Vijay Kinger, Roopa Nagpal and Hemant Kumar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla

Click here to read/download Order