Husband Should Provide Financial Support To Wife & Minor Children Even By Doing Physical Labour: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order.
While dismissing a man’s revision against a maintenance order, the Delhi High Court reiterated that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, even by doing physical labour, and he cannot avoid his obligation.
The High Court was considering a revision petition filed under Sections 438,442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by a husband seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the Family Court.
The Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee held, “Be that as it may, on merits also, the records reveal that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proving that the respondent no.1 was capable of maintaining/ supporting herself and the two daughters residing with her. The case of the petitioner was based on bald assertions without any supporting document(s)/ evidence(s) thereto. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena : (2015) 6 SCC 353 and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, the husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children inasmuch as it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them. It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, even by doing physical labour, and could not avoid his obligation. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the petitioner that he is unable to pay the maintenance on the ground that he has no regular source of income and, therefore, not in a position to pay the maintenance, is not acceptable.”
“The petitioner is well aware that this is not an appeal. Therefore, under the garb of the present revision petition, the petitioner can neither reagitate the same issues, which this Court finds, have already been duly referred to and thence negated by the learned Family Court nor seek to agitate new facts which were never before the learned Family Court. This Court cannot lose sight of the factum that for raising fresh issues, the petitioner has to take recourse to appropriate remedies as available to him under law by filing a fresh petition under Section 127 of the CrPC before the very same Court which has passed the impugned judgment based on the change of circumstances", it added.
Advocate Vijay Kinger represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Gurinder Pal Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the petitioner husband and the respondent wife was solemnised in 2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, two daughters (the second and third respondents) were born out of the said wedlock. With the passage of time, their matrimonial relationship turned sour, which, as per the respondent-wife resulted in her returning to her parental home along with her children. In an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), before the Family Court, the respondents sought maintenance. This culminated in the passing of the impugned judgment.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, made it clear that under the garb of the revision petition, the petitioner could neither reagitate the same issues, which have already been duly referred to and negated by the Family Court, nor seek to agitate new facts which were never before the Family Court.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proving that the respondent wife was capable of maintaining/ supporting herself and the two daughters residing with her. As per the Bench, the case of the petitioner was based on bald assertions without any supporting documents or evidence.
It was noticed that, as per the salary slips for the period of February 2021 to April 2021, the husband was drawing a gross monthly salary of approximately Rs 40,000. “Record also reveals that the petitioner had himself admittedly agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively to the respondents in two mediation settlements way back on 09.02.2016 and 12.10.2020, as also that he was offered employment wherein salary between Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- [Ex.PW1/7(colly)] was offered to him”, the order read.
The Bench found the quantum of maintenance of Rs 11,000 per month awarded to each of the respondent to be broadly in consonance with the principle laid by the Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004) wherein it has been held that the Court should first ascertain the net disposable income of the husband/ primary earner of the family and, where the other spouse is also earning, such income is likewise required to be taken into account.
“The petitioner is estopped from reopening his case de novo and seek to reagitate the very same facts and grounds before this Court once again”, the Bench concluded while dismissing the petition.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4517)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Vijay Kinger, Roopa Nagpal, Hemant Kumar, Himanshu Kinger, Ashwani Gehlot
Respondent: Advocates Gurinder Pal Singh, Satyam Upadhyay, Respondent in person