The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband against an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to his wife. The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that a wife’s educational qualifications or gifts received from her parents do not disentitle her from claiming maintenance if she is not actually earning a stable income. The Court emphasized that “mere potential or theoretical capacity to earn cannot substitute for real financial independence.”
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on December 3, 2018, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Following disputes, the respondent-wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), alleging continuous physical, verbal, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse by the petitioner and his family.
On July 20, 2024, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-01, Patiala House Courts) directed the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the respondent. The Trial Court observed that the husband had concealed his true income and that the wife, though coming from a sound financial background, was entitled to a similar status.
Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed an appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, on January 8, 2025. The Sessions Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings, noting that the husband failed to prove any recurring regular income of the wife. Subsequently, the husband approached the High Court challenging these orders.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner-Husband, represented by Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, argued that he was unemployed as his tenure as a member of the Telephone Advisory Committee, which was an honorary position, had expired on January 13, 2024. He contended that the respondent-wife was “fully aware” of his employment status at the time of marriage.
He further argued that the respondent-wife is highly educated, holding B.A., M.A., and B.Ed. degrees, and possesses substantial independent means. The counsel submitted that she owns multiple properties, has significant investments, and had sold a Range Rover car worth Rs. 2 crores, appropriating the proceeds. He claimed her Income Tax Returns (ITR) reflected significant interest income, rendering her financially superior to him.
Conversely, the Respondent-Wife, represented by Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, argued that the petitioner belongs to an affluent business family and maintains a luxurious lifestyle. She highlighted that immediately after marriage, the couple resided in a farmhouse with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,25,000. She submitted that she is unemployed and financially dependent on the petitioner for her sustenance. She clarified that any assets in her name were provided by her father and that the petitioner had misused her funds.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court meticulously examined the financial status of both parties and rejected the petitioner’s plea of unemployment. The Court noted that the petitioner’s bank statements revealed recurring financial transactions, including credits from entities like “ONE 97 Communications” and “GRIP INVEST MITCON.” Furthermore, his ITR for the assessment year 2019-20 reflected a gross income of Rs. 9,12,586, contradicting his claim of having “nil” income.
On Wife’s Inherited Assets: Addressing the husband’s contention regarding the wife’s assets and parental wealth, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801. Justice Sharma observed:
“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… 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.”
On Wife’s Education and Earning Capacity: The Court also rejected the argument that the wife’s educational qualifications should bar her from receiving maintenance. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court held:
“It is well-settled that the mere fact that the wife is educated or has some source of income does not, by itself, disentitle her from seeking maintenance… It is equally material that a wife must be actually employed and earning a stable income for such an argument to hold weight; a mere potential or theoretical capacity to earn cannot substitute for real financial independence.”
The Court further noted that while assessing the maintenance, the income and profits derived from the husband’s family business must be considered, citing the precedent set in Smt. Sumedha Bhardwaj v. Shri Jagdeep Bhardwaj.
Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the quantum of Rs. 50,000 per month was “reasonable, just, and commensurate with the needs of the respondent-wife and the financial capacity of the petitioner.”
The Court dismissed the revision petition, clarifying that the observations made were confined to the determination of interim maintenance and would not prejudice the merits of the pending trial.
Case Details:
- Case Title: DK v. AY
- Case No: CRL.REV.P. 51/2025
- Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Janvi Vohra, Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Veenu Singh, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena and Ms. Aamya, Advocates.
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate.
