The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's earning capacity does not serve as an absolute bar for a husband to provide maintenance. The division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta stated that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than that of the wife.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case before the Delhi High Court involved a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife who had been married since the year 2000. The couple welcomed a daughter into their family in 2010. However, by 2019, the wife had filed for divorce, alleging cruelty on the part of the husband, desertion, and the compulsion to live separately since 2013. Alongside her divorce petition, the wife submitted an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 75,000 per month for herself and their daughter. The family court, in response to this application, directed the husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month exclusively for the minor child, but denied pendente lite maintenance to the wife.
Contentions of the Parties:
The appellant, who possessed an MBA and LLB qualification, asserted a monthly income derived from her business and rental property. Despite her earnings, she contended that she required financial support from her husband to sustain herself and contribute to the upbringing of their daughter. The husband initially expressed willingness for mutual consent divorce but later remained absent from the proceedings, leading to an ex-parte proceeding. The family court, in its order, relied on the wife's earning capacity to deny her pendente lite maintenance, asserting that she was capable of self-sustainment.
Observations by the Court:
The court disagreed with the family court's observation that the wife, being capable of earning, did not require financial support from the husband. It noted the wife's constrained living situation in a tenanted premises and the expenses she bore for the education, extracurricular activities, and medical needs of the child.
The court emphasized that the primary purpose of these provisions is to offer financial support to dependent wives and children. The parameter for granting maintenance to the wife is determined by whether her income is sufficient to maintain both herself and any minor children. The court highlighted the need for a realistic approach in determining maintenance, avoiding extremes that could be oppressive or extravagant, and considering the duration of the marriage and the conduct of the parties.
Furthermore, the court stressed the importance of timely resolution, stating that interim maintenance applications should be disposed of within 60 days of service of notice. The court expressed its disapproval of deferring decisions on maintenance when the contesting party chooses not to participate, as it defeats the legislative intent of providing monthly support to the applicant.
The Decision of the Court:
In light of these considerations, the court modified the family court's order, granting the wife a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000, in addition to the maintenance for the minor child, from the date of the application until the proceedings' disposal. The respondent was also directed to clear any arrears of maintenance within the stipulated timeline.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 231/2023
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr.T.S.Ahuja, Mr.Varun Singh Ahuja and Ms.Ridhi Kapoor, Advocates.
Advocates of the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.vakilno1.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/maintenance.jpg
