The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging the orders of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court that had awarded ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife and their two minor children. The Court observed that the husband had attempted to misrepresent facts to evade his liability and reiterated that a husband’s obligation to maintain his wife and children is both moral and legal, not an act of charity.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner and his wife were married according to Muslim rites and had two children. Following marital discord, they began living separately. The wife filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim maintenance for herself and their children.
During the proceedings, the husband claimed he was merely a helper earning a modest income, while the wife alleged that he was engaged in a business earning a much higher amount. On the direction of the Trial Court, the Protection Officer visited the premises and found the husband at the business address mentioned by the wife, not at the residential address he had declared. Based on this finding, the Trial Court awarded ₹12,000 as interim maintenance. The Sessions Court later upheld this order, leading to the present revision petition before the Delhi High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the courts below erred in assessing his financial capacity. It was contended that the wife was well-educated, holding a graduate degree and a diploma, and was capable of earning her livelihood. The petitioner further submitted that he had since divorced the respondent, remarried, and had additional dependents to support, making it impossible to pay the ordered amount from his limited income. It was also urged that the appellate court disposed of the appeal hastily without proper hearing.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Trial Court had followed a fair and balanced approach, relying on income affidavits and verification reports. The Court emphasized that when parties attempt to conceal or misrepresent income, courts are justified in drawing reasonable inferences from lifestyle, living conditions, and other available materials.
Rejecting the husband’s contentions, the Court observed, “An able-bodied husband cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children by claiming limited means or by merely asserting that the wife is employable. The obligation of maintenance arises not from generosity but from a statutory and moral duty.”
The Bench further noted that the wife had no independent income and was solely responsible for the care of two school-going children. It found the maintenance amount of ₹12,000 for three individuals to be minimal and barely adequate for basic sustenance. The Court also agreed with the appellate court’s view that merely filing an appeal or revision does not automatically stay the payment of maintenance.
The decision of the Court:
Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the impugned orders did not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference. It reiterated that interim maintenance serves as a provisional measure to ensure survival and dignity during the pendency of litigation and does not determine the parties’ ultimate rights. Accordingly, the Court upheld the maintenance award of ₹12,000 per month in favour of the wife and her two minor children.
Case Title: Rukshar Hussain vs. State & Anr.
Case No.: Crl.Rev.P. 210/2018
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vijay Kinger, Roopa Nagpal, Hemant Kumar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Hemant Mehla (APP)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
