Emphasizing that delayed financial support amounts to a denial of dignity, the Delhi High Court has ordered a man to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter, underlining that such support is a legal and moral duty, not an optional benevolence.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a detailed order passed on July 1, was hearing the husband’s challenge to a family court’s directive requiring him to pay ₹45,000 per month — ₹22,500 each for the wife and child. While the court upheld the amount fixed for the wife, it reduced the child’s interim maintenance to ₹17,500 per month.
“Financial support delayed is dignity denied,” the court observed, calling timely disbursal of maintenance essential to safeguard not just subsistence but also the dignity of those entitled to it.
The bench rebuked the husband’s argument that he was only one month behind on payments and had not intentionally defaulted. The amicus curiae appearing for the wife countered that even a single day’s delay had severe consequences for the woman, who lacked an independent income and was solely reliant on the court-ordered maintenance.
“The wife suffers in silence, grappling with uncertainty and anxiety about how she would meet her basic needs,” the court noted. “While the petitioner argues that only one month’s maintenance is outstanding, the impact of such delay on the respondent cannot be trivialised.”
Justice Sharma underscored that maintenance serves to ensure access to essentials such as food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare. “It is not charity to be dispensed at the convenience of the earning spouse but a statutory right,” the order stated.
The court also rejected the husband’s claim that his financial obligations — including EMIs for a house under construction and supporting his elderly parents — justified delayed payments. “The statutory right of the wife and child to receive maintenance cannot be defeated on account of EMIs being paid by the husband towards any property,” the bench held.
In conclusion, the court said the legislative framework for maintenance was intended to shield dependent spouses and children from “the fear, helplessness, and financial insecurity” that arise from irregular support.
