Financial Support Delayed Is Dignity Denied | Delhi High Court Modifies Maintenance Order | Says Even A Day’s Delay Violates Dependent Wife And Child’s Right To Live With Dignity
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has upheld the interim maintenance awarded to a woman and her minor daughter by the Family Court, with a modification to the quantum payable for the child. The court modified the Family Court's order dated 01.08.2024 to the extent that the petitioner-husband shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 22,500 per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 17,500 per month to the minor child. The earlier order had directed payment of Rs. 22,500 each to both.
While the petitioner challenged the Family Court's interim maintenance order on grounds of financial constraints and alleged non-disclosure of income by the respondent-wife, the High Court declined to interfere with the findings regarding the wife’s entitlement. However, the Court partially accepted the petitioner’s plea regarding payment of school fees and adjusted the maintenance payable for the child accordingly.
The Court clarified that deductions for voluntary EMIs or unsupported claims of financial dependence cannot be considered while determining maintenance. The judgement reaffirmed the principle that even short delays in maintenance disrupt the basic dignity and survival of the dependent spouse and child. The court disposed of the petition, noting that the interim maintenance paid would be adjustable in final adjudication.
The petitioner-husband challenged the interim maintenance order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi. As per the said order, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000 per month as interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This amount included Rs. 22,500 each for the respondent-wife and the minor child.
The petitioner and respondent-wife were married on 11.02.2015. A female child was born on 19.08.2017 and is currently in the custody of the respondent-wife. The respondent had left the matrimonial home citing acts of cruelty allegedly committed by the petitioner and his family and thereafter filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, through his counsel, challenged the interim maintenance on multiple grounds. It was submitted that the petitioner had always been willing to reside with the respondents and had made sincere efforts towards reconciliation. It was stated that he resides in a rented accommodation and bears financial responsibility for his aged parents.
According to the petitioner, he has incurred a loan burden of Rs. 35,00,000 from various banks for constructing a house at his native place. He pays an EMI of Rs. 66,216 per month towards this home loan, apart from monthly rental expenses. He also claimed that he had already been paying the school fees of the minor daughter, amounting to Rs. 5,500 per month, even before initiation of the proceedings.
The petitioner further contended that the respondent-wife failed to submit an affidavit detailing her income and expenditure before the Trial Court. He claimed that her assertion of monthly expenses amounting to Rs. 70,000, including Rs. 20,000 for the child, was inflated and unjustified, especially since he was already covering the child's education cost.
Additionally, it was submitted that the petitioner is employed as a Software Engineer and draws a monthly salary of Rs. 1,05,000. He claimed that after accounting for EMIs, rent, and expenses towards his parents, he is not financially capable of paying Rs. 45,000 per month as maintenance.
The amicus curiae, appointed for the respondent-wife and child, argued that the petitioner is gainfully employed and earning Rs. 1,05,000 per month, a fact which was admitted by him. No documentary evidence was submitted by the petitioner to dispute or lower the admitted salary.
It was contended that the Family Court had correctly applied the formula laid down in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 110 (2004) DLT 456, which provides for equitable apportionment of income, allocating two parts to the husband, and one part each to the wife and child.
The amicus further submitted that the petitioner had not produced any documents to substantiate his claims regarding financial dependence of his aged parents. Nor was any proof filed regarding the claimed investment under Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, although the Family Court had nonetheless granted a Rs. 15,000 deductions.
It was also argued that the home loan EMIs were being paid for a house in the name of the petitioner’s father, which rendered the EMIs voluntary and thus not legally deductible. Several previous judgments of the Delhi High Court were cited to support the contention that EMIs towards ancestral properties not owned by the husband cannot be considered a valid deduction while computing maintenance.
Allegations of cruelty and illicit relationship were also raised against the petitioner, claiming he was involved with another woman and had purchased property for her. The respondent-wife, it was submitted, is only 12th pass, has no independent income, and is fully dependent on maintenance for sustenance.
The Court observed that the petitioner failed to place any evidence showing the financial status or dependence of his parents. Additionally, no material was provided to indicate that the respondent-wife is gainfully employed. The claim of EMI burden was held non-maintainable since the property is not in the petitioner’s name.
It was also pointed out that the respondent-wife did not claim payment of school fees, and the petitioner’s claim of paying Rs. 5,500 per month towards the same was not disputed. Considering this, the court revised the maintenance payable to the minor child while keeping the wife's maintenance intact.
The Court recorded that "as per the petitioner and the affidavit of income and expenditure filed by him, he has himself admitted to having a monthly income of Rs.1,05,000/-." It was further noted that the petitioner did not dispute his employment status with TLG India Private Limited.
Regarding the petitioner’s claim of EMI deductions, the Court observed "It has been held categorically in the case of Nitin Sharma v. Sunita, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694, that only statutory mandatory deductions from the income of the husband are permissible to be deducted for the purpose of computation of his income for the purpose of grant of maintenance."
The Court added from the same judgment: "In the opinion of this Court, while calculating the quantum of maintenance, the income has to be ascertained keeping in mind that the deductions only towards income tax and compulsory contributions like GPF, EPF etc. are permitted and no deductions towards house rent, electric charges, repayment of loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted."
Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Court quoted from Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari: "Income Tax would certainly be deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges."
Addressing the petitioner’s argument on dependency of aged parents, the Court observed: "The petitioner’s claim regarding his parents being financially dependent upon him remains completely unsupported by any documentary evidence. In the absence of any such material, this Court is unable to accept the petitioner’s contention."
On the failure to prove respondent-wife's income, the Court stated: "There is no document, affidavit, or income proof filed to indicate that the respondent-wife is engaged in any gainful employment or possesses any financial resources of her own."
Regarding the hardship caused by delayed maintenance, the Court observed: "Even a single day’s delay in the payment of maintenance leaves a profound impact on the respondent, who struggles to meet her daily expenses, sustain herself, and provide for the minor child."
The Court continued: "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."
In its reasoning, the Court further stated: "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."
As to the school fees, the Court recorded: "The petitioner has stated that he is paying Rs.5,500/- towards the child’s school fee, which was not considered by the learned Family Court." It noted that the school fee for the minor child amounts to approximately Rs. 16,650 quarterly.
The Court issued the following final directions: "Accordingly, this Court directs that the interim maintenance payable to the respondent no.1-wife shall remain to be Rs.22,500/- per month, however, the respondent no.2/minor child shall be entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.17,500/- per month."
The Court clarified: "The impugned order shall stand modified to this extent."
It further directed: "Any amount of interim maintenance paid by the petitioner shall remain adjustable in the future amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court at the time of final disposal of the case by the learned Trial Court."
"With above directions, the present petition along with pending application stands disposed of."
Additionally, the Court stated: "Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case."
The judgment concluded with an appreciation: "This Court also appreciates the efforts of Ms. Payal Seth, Advocate who was appointed as amicus curiae in the present matter to represent the respondents."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hari Shankar, Advocate along with petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Ms. Payal Seth, Amicus Curiae along with respondent no. 1 in person
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5109
Case Number: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 & CRL.M.A. 29468/2024
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
