Recently, the Delhi High Court upheld an order directing a husband to pay Rs. 50,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife, rejecting his plea of unemployment and alleged financial incapacity. The Court made it clear that a husband cannot evade his statutory obligation by concealing income or relying on a wife’s inherited assets, observing that maintenance law is aimed at preserving dignity, not rewarding evasion.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a marriage solemnised in December 2018. Soon after the marriage, serious marital discord surfaced, with the wife alleging sustained physical, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse at the hands of the husband. She also alleged misappropriation of jewellery worth approximately ₹20 lakh and acts intended to abandon and deprive her of financial support. Following separation, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), seeking interim relief, including maintenance.
After considering income affidavits, bank statements, and Income Tax Returns, the Mahila Court, Patiala House Courts, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month under Section 23 of the PWDV Act. The husband’s appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act was dismissed by the Sessions Court in January 2025, leading him to approach the Delhi High Court through a criminal revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the interim maintenance order was founded on conjecture rather than evidence. It was contended that the wife had deliberately concealed her substantial financial capacity, including ownership of multiple properties, high-value investments, fixed deposits, and proceeds from sale of assets. Emphasis was placed on her educational qualifications and alleged annual income, far exceeding that of her husband. The petitioner maintained that he was unemployed, had limited income, and that the wife’s financial independence disentitled her to claim interim maintenance.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the husband had deliberately suppressed his true income and continued to lead a luxurious lifestyle inconsistent with his claim of unemployment. It was argued that the husband belonged to an affluent business family and enjoyed substantial financial support. The wife asserted that assets standing in her name were inherited or gifted by her family and did not constitute a recurring source of income. Relying on settled law, it was contended that a woman’s education, inherited assets, or notional earning potential cannot defeat her right to maintenance when she remains financially dependent.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted recurring financial transactions in the Petitioner’s bank accounts and income reflected in his Income Tax Returns, observing that his assertion of “nil” income was “not borne out from the material available on record.” The Bench also took note of photographs and lifestyle indicators which were “wholly inconsistent with the financial hardship claimed.”
Significantly, the Court rejected the attempt to rely on the wife’s inherited and family-gifted assets, holding that “the stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim for maintenance. The claim for maintenance must be assessed with reference to her present earning capacity and ability to sustain herself in the standard of living she was accustomed to during her marriage, and not on the financial status of her natal family.” Relying on Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain and Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reiterated that education or potential earning capacity does not bar maintenance, emphasising that “a mere potential or theoretical capacity to earn cannot substitute for real financial independence.”
The Bench Emphasised that an able-bodied husband carries a higher moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife and that maintenance must ensure a standard of living commensurate with what the wife enjoyed during matrimony. The Court further clarified that interim maintenance is not an exercise in mathematical exactitude but a measure to secure reasonable comfort and dignity.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the grant of Rs. 50,000 per month as interim maintenance, holding that a husband cannot escape maintenance obligations by understating income or invoking a wife’s inherited assets, education, or notional earning capacity; what matters is actual financial dependence and the standard of living during marriage.
Case Title: A vs. B
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 51/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Prashant Mendiratta, Janvi Vohra, Akshat Kaushik, Veenu Singh, Vaishnavi Saxena, and Aamya
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Nawal Kishore Jha
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
