The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband who secures a divorce by proving his wife’s mental illness (insanity) cannot subsequently evade his obligation to pay maintenance by arguing that she is educated and capable of earning a livelihood.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that such contradictory stands by a husband are legally untenable. Consequently, the Court enhanced the maintenance amount payable to the wife, considering the husband’s substantial income as a Chartered Accountant in Dubai, while dismissing a separate plea by the wife regarding the calculation of arrears.
Case Background
The Court was hearing two revision petitions filed by Petitioner/wife against Respondent/husband. The couple married in 1999. In 2004, the wife was awarded maintenance of ₹3,000, which was enhanced to ₹6,000 by consent in 2005.
In 2008, the husband was granted a decree of divorce on the grounds of “cruelty and insanity,” specifically establishing that the wife suffered from Schizophrenia. The husband subsequently remarried in 2008 and has a daughter.
In 2011, the wife filed a petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking enhancement of maintenance. The Principal Judge, Family Courts, East District, vide judgment dated July 12, 2017, enhanced the maintenance to ₹9,000 per month from the date of application (13.01.2011) and ₹15,000 per month from the date of the order.
The wife challenged this order in CRL.REV.P. 950/2017, seeking further enhancement. Simultaneously, she filed CRL.REV.P. 295/2021 challenging an order dated April 6, 2021, passed in an execution petition where the Family Court held that the husband had satisfied the arrears, rejecting the wife’s claim that the enhanced amount was “in addition” to the earlier maintenance.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the maintenance awarded was grossly inadequate as the Respondent is a qualified Chartered Accountant working in Dubai earning over ₹6 Lakhs per month. It was submitted that the Petitioner, suffering from Schizophrenia, is unemployed and dependent on her parents. The Counsel contended that the Respondent had taken “mutually destructive stands” by claiming insanity for divorce but arguing capability to earn for maintenance.
Conversely, Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Petitioner holds an Advanced Diploma in Computer Applications and was gainfully employed before marriage. The Respondent contended that he has increased liabilities, including a second wife, a school-going daughter, and aged parents, alongside the high cost of living in the UAE.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Mutually Destructive Stands on Wife’s Capacity to Earn The High Court strongly rejected the husband’s argument that the wife was capable of earning due to her educational qualifications. The Court noted that the husband had obtained a divorce on the specific ground of the wife’s mental health condition (Schizophrenia).
Justice Sharma observed:
“If the petitioner’s mental health condition was accepted by the court as a valid ground for dissolution of marriage, it is neither fair nor reasonable to expect her to independently maintain herself merely on the basis of her educational qualifications. Mental illness may substantially impair a person’s ability to secure and retain regular employment… A husband who has secured divorce by relying upon the wife’s mental condition cannot thereafter evade his statutory obligation by contending that she possesses the qualification and the capability to earn. Such a plea is clearly untenable and is accordingly rejected.”
2. Income and Voluntary Deductions The Court assessed the Respondent’s financial capacity, noting that he earns in Dubai. While acknowledging the high cost of living abroad, citing Bindu Chaudhary v. Deepak Suga, the Court held that voluntary financial commitments like loan repayments cannot dilute the statutory obligation to maintain a spouse.
Referencing the decision in Subhash v. Mamta @ Raksha, the Court reiterated that maintenance is assessed on “free income” and not income remaining after voluntary deductions. The Court found that even after reasonable deductions, the Respondent had a substantial surplus.
3. Parental Support Immaterial Rejecting the argument that the wife’s parents are financially sound, the Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, stated:
“The obligation to maintain a wife under Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. is personal to the husband and cannot be diluted on the basis of the financial capacity of the wife’s parents.”
4. Interpretation of the 2017 Order Regarding the second petition (CRL.REV.P. 295/2021), the Court analyzed the Family Court’s 2017 order. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s interpretation that the direction to pay ₹9,000 per month was a substitution of the earlier amount, not an addition to it. The Court termed the petitioner’s attempt to reinterpret the order as “frivolous” and an attempt to “reopen settled issues.”
The Decision
The High Court disposed of the petitions with the following directions:
- Enhancement Allowed: In CRL.REV.P. 950/2017, the Court held the existing maintenance of ₹15,000 inadequate. The Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹20,000 per month, payable with effect from July 12, 2017.
- Date of Enhancement: The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant enhancement from the date of the fresh application (13.01.2011) rather than the earlier dismissed application of 2007.
- Execution Petition Dismissed: CRL.REV.P. 295/2021 was dismissed. The Court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the Petitioner for filing a frivolous petition based on a misinterpretation of a clear judicial order.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Preeti Sharma v. Anuj Sharma
- Case Numbers: CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 295/2021
- Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
