Voluntary Retirement No Excuse to Avoid Maintenance, HC calls out Income Evasion Tactics

Recently, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with a Family Court order directing a husband to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and children, holding that opting for voluntary retirement cannot dilute financial responsibility. The Court made it clear that a self-imposed reduction in income will not be accepted at face value, particularly where it appears to be a calculated attempt to minimise maintenance liability.

The case stemmed from a challenge to a Family Court order fixing monthly maintenance for the wife and children, which was later enhanced for the wife and daughter. The husband argued that after taking voluntary retirement from a stable job, he had limited means and was now dependent on modest agricultural income and a pension. He also claimed that his wife was financially independent through rental income and had chosen to live separately. Contesting this, the wife maintained that she had been compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and lacked sufficient independent income to sustain herself and the children. The dispute thus centred on whether the husband’s reduced income was genuine or strategically projected to avoid higher maintenance.

Justice Amit Mahajan approached the issue by examining not just the declared income but the surrounding circumstances and probabilities. The Court expressed scepticism over the husband’s claim that his agricultural land yielded negligible income and found it implausible that a well-qualified individual would voluntarily exit stable employment without securing an alternative source of livelihood. The Court noted that “quitting of jobs is… a common strategy adopted by well qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance,” highlighting a recurring pattern in matrimonial litigation.

The Court further emphasised that in such disputes, parties often understate their actual earnings, and therefore, courts are justified in making a reasonable estimation of income based on available material and surrounding facts. It reiterated that an able-bodied person cannot evade his obligation by projecting financial incapacity when the capacity to earn persists.

The Bench found no substantive evidence to support the claim and noted that whatever income existed was insufficient to sustain her and the children. It also clarified that living separately due to allegations of cruelty does not disentitle a spouse from seeking maintenance.

While the Court did note a minor discrepancy in how the Family Court addressed financial responsibility toward the husband’s mother, it found no reason to interfere with the overall maintenance assessment, concluding that the amount fixed was justified in the circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.