Maintenance Is Not A Charity; Safeguards Right To Live With Dignity: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that the very object of maintenance under the statutory framework is to ensure financial stability and a sense of security for the dependent spouse and child. Maintenance is intended to safeguard their right to live with dignity and meet basic expenses such as food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education. It is not a benevolence or charity to be delayed at the convenience of the earning spouse.

The family court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 45,000/- to the wife and minor child.

The Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed, “This Court notes that while the petitioner continues to sleep in peace, secure in the knowledge of his regular income and resources, the respondent suffers in silence, grappling with uncertainty and anxiety about how she will meet her basic needs if maintenance is not paid in a timely manner. The hardship faced by a dependent spouse or child is not measured merely by the quantum of arrears but by the immediate consequences of financial deprivation that even short delays in maintenance can cause… The legislative intent is to prevent precisely the kind of fear, helplessness, and financial insecurity that the respondent has expressed due to such delays. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner‟s argument that minimal outstanding maintenance is a ground to dilute or defer his legal obligation. Even a day's lapse compromises the welfare of the dependent wife and child, which defeats the purpose of maintenance provisions.”

Advocate Hari Shankar represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Payal Seth (Amicus Curiae) represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The marriage between the husband and wife took place in 2015 and a child was born out of their wedlock in 2017, who is currently in the custody of the wife. Due to the alleged acts of cruelty committed by the husband and his family members, the wife had left the matrimonial home and subsequently filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the family court seeking maintenance.

The Petitioner contended that he is presently residing in rented accommodation and his aged parents are financially dependent on him. Further, it was submitted that the husband is also burdened with the repayment of a home loan, for which he is paying an EMI of ₹66,216/- per month, in addition to the monthly rent of his residence.

While the Amicus Curiae appearing for the wife contended that the husband's claim regarding financial dependence of his aged parents is vague and remains unsubstantiated, as no documents have been filed to prove their income, expenses, or dependency. As for the husband’s reliance on EMIs towards home loan repayment, it was submitted that the Court has in several decisions held that voluntary EMIs, especially those towards properties not owned by the husband, cannot be considered while determining maintenance obligations. The property for which EMIs are being paid is admittedly owned by the husband’s father.

Additionally, it was submitted that the wife has no independent income and is only 12th pass, residing with her parents with her minor child.

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that the contention regarding payment of EMI of home loan is concerned, the same is not a mandatory deduction or liability.

Further, the Court noted that the husband’s claim regarding his parents being financially dependent upon him remains completely unsupported by any documentary evidence.

“When financial support is delayed, dignity is the first casualty and the wife should not be left to suffer in silence”, the Court remarked.

The Bench further opined that the wife should not be left to suffer in silence, questioning how her immediate needs will be met while the husband enjoys financial stability. The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse.

“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that maintenance is not merely a monetary obligation but a legal and moral duty designed to preserve the dignity and security of the dependent spouse and child. In the present case, while the petitioner argues that only one month's maintenance is outstanding, the impact of such delay on the respondent cannot be trivialised. The reality is that even a day's uncertainty over basic expenses causes distress and hardship to the respondent, who is entirely dependent on the maintenance for her survival and for providing for the minor child…Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: ABC V. XYZ & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5109)

Click here to read/download Judgment.