Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a husband’s revision petition challenging the interim maintenance granted to his wife and two minor children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory responsibility to support his dependents by citing low income or the wife’s qualifications. Observing that judicial estimation is necessary where there is no direct proof of income, the Court found that the lower courts had appropriately assessed the husband’s financial capacity and awarded ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance. Concluding that the amount ensured basic sustenance, the Court upheld the order and directed continued payment during the pendency of proceedings.

The petitioner filed a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court concerning interim maintenance awarded under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner had married Respondent No. 2 on 11 November 2017 in Delhi, and two children were born from the marriage. Following marital discord, the parties began living separately.

Also Read: Gaps In Investigation, Missing Witness Testimony Led To Doubt’: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Raping, Robbing And Killing 85-Year-Old Woman

Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, along with an application seeking interim maintenance for herself and her two minor children. The Trial Court, after considering the income affidavits and a verification report from the Protection Officer, found that the petitioner had misrepresented his income by providing a false employment address. The Protection Officer’s inquiry established that he was engaged in business at a property in Gandhi Nagar. Consequently, the Trial Court assessed his monthly income as ₹25,000 and awarded ₹12,000 as interim maintenance to the respondent and her children.

The petitioner appealed, arguing that the respondent was qualified, capable of earning, and not entitled to maintenance. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, noting his failure to deposit arrears and his obligation to maintain his estranged wife and children. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the High Court, asserting financial incapacity, remarriage, and responsibility for a second family. The respondent stated she had no independent income and was solely responsible for their children’s care and education.

 
The Court observed that “the Trial Court 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.” It stated that the petitioner’s claim of earning ₹8,000 per month “was inconsistent with the Protection Officer’s verification, which found him present at the business premises disclosed by Respondent No. 2, while the address provided by him was found to be residential.” The Court recorded that such misrepresentation demonstrated the petitioner’s intent “to evade his maintenance obligations.”

The judgment stated that “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 Court noted that the Trial Court’s inference of ₹25,000 monthly income and the maintenance amount of ₹12,000 for three persons was “minimal and barely sufficient to ensure basic sustenance.”

Further, the Court recorded that “the contention that Respondent No. 2 is well-qualified and capable of employment, and therefore disentitled to maintenance, does not merit acceptance at the interim stage.” It cited judicial precedents including Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007 SCC OnLine 622), Rajnesh v. Neha (2012) 2 SCC 324, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705, and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314), affirming 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.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Matrimonial FIR Can’t Be Quashed If Settlement Between Estranged Spouses Not Executed

The Court stated that 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.” It recorded that interim maintenance serves as a provisional measure “to safeguard basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings” and “neither determines the parties’ ultimate rights nor precludes a fresh evaluation upon full evidence at the final stage.”

The Court ordered that “the impugned orders disclose no perversity or infirmity warranting interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. An order of interim maintenance is a provisional measure designed to safeguard basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings. In light of the foregoing, the petition stands dismissed.” It further clarified that “this interim maintenance neither determines the parties’ ultimate rights nor precludes a fresh evaluation upon full evidence at the final stage.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kinger, Ms. Roopa Nagpal, and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State;

Case Title: X v Y
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 210/2018
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula