Delhi High Court Grants Enhanced Maintenance To Wife As Husband Earns Nearly Ten Times More Than Her
The Delhi High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, challenging an Order of the Family Court.
Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted enhanced maintenance to an earning woman after noting that the income of the husband was nearly ten times more than the income of the wife. The High Court held that mere fact that the wife is earning does not disentitle her to claim maintenance, as she is entitled to the same standard of living that she enjoyed during her matrimonial life.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant wife under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, challenging an Order of the Family Court partly allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant-wife, awarding maintenance of Rs 35,000 per month along with all school-related expenses for the minor daughter. The Family Court had declined the appellant's claim for her own maintenance.
The Division Bench of Justice Renu Bhatnagar and Justice Navin Chawla stated, “In assessing a claim under Section 24 of the HMA, the determinative test is not merely whether the wife is employed or capable of earning, but whether her income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to during cohabitation. The financial disparity between the parties is stark, the respondent earns nearly ten times the income of the appellant. The very purpose of interim maintenance is to strike a fair balance and ensure parity in lifestyle, so that the financially weaker spouse and the child are not prejudiced by the economic advantage of the other.”
“The law is equally well settled that a claim for maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA is not defeated merely because the applicant is educated, theoretically capable of earning, or even in fact earning”, it further added.
Factual Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2013, according to the Hindu rites and customs, in Delhi. From this wedlock, a daughter was born. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since October 2019. Since the date of separation, the custody of the minor child has remained with the appellant. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA on the grounds of cruelty.
In response thereto, the appellant-wife filed her written statement, denying the allegations and simultaneously moved an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking interim maintenance for herself and her daughter. The Family Court passed the Impugned Order directing the respondent to pay Rs. 35,000 per month as maintenance for the minor daughter in addition to all school-related expenses, but declined to award any maintenance to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant wife approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the stark disparity between the financial capacities of the parties. As per the Bench, the appellant, though employed as an Assistant Professor in a college affiliated with Delhi University and earning approximately Rs. 1,25,000 per month, could not be equated with the respondent employed as a Senior Computer Scientist with Adobe Systems and drawing an annual income exceeding Rs. 1 crore (Rs. 1,12,65,603/- for the year 2019–20 and Rs. 1,35,11,540/- for the year 2020–21), apart from enjoying additional employment benefits such as RSUs, stock options, international travel allowances, and investments. “Even after deduction of income tax, there remains a vast difference between their incomes. The purpose of Section 24 of the HMA is not to equalise the incomes of the parties but to ensure that both maintain the same standard of living”, it stated.
It was further noticed that despite the wife’s employment, her income did not sufficiently meet the demands of sustaining the standard of living that both she and the minor child were accustomed to before the separation. “As settled by law, the financial self-sufficiency of the wife must be assessed not in absolute terms but relative to the standard of living maintained during the marriage. The objective of Section 24 of the HMA is to ensure that neither spouse suffers economic hardship or social disadvantage due to the breakdown of the marital relationship. Consequently, to ensure parity and fairness, the maintenance must be calibrated in a manner that allows both parties, especially the financially weaker spouse, to live with dignity and maintain a comparable lifestyle, particularly when the respondent‟s income is almost tenfold that of the appellant”, it mentioned.
The Bench thus enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs 35,000 as granted by the Family Court, to Rs 1,50,000 per month, cumulatively for both the appellant and the child. “Save and except for the above modification with regard to the quantum of maintenance, all other directions contained in the Impugned Order of the Family Court shall remain unaltered and binding on the parties”, it concluded.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7888-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates R.S. Sahni, Jasmine Sahni, Ashmine Sahni
Respondent: Advocates Gaurav Kumar, Shrestha, Rahul, Sutapa Ghose