The Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar, dismissed an appeal filed by the husband challenging the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance to his estranged wife and their minor daughter. The Court held that mere educational qualifications and earning capacity of the wife cannot be grounds to deny her maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, especially when there is no evidence of actual earnings.
Background:
The parties were married in December 2019 but began living separately from March 2021. A female child was born out of the wedlock and currently resides with the wife. The husband initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, alleging adultery on the part of the wife.
In the course of these proceedings, the wife filed an application under Section 24 HMA seeking pendente lite maintenance for herself and their minor daughter. This was allowed by the Family Court, which awarded ₹10,000 per month to the wife (after a prior lump sum of ₹30,000) and ₹15,000 per month to the child.
Appellant’s Contentions:
The husband, appearing in person, challenged the Family Court’s order primarily on the following grounds:
- The wife was allegedly working as a Finance Executive and held positions as an insurance planner with multiple companies, but failed to disclose her true income.
- She holds B.Tech and MBA degrees and was therefore capable of earning.
- Bank accounts, fixed deposits, and IT returns allegedly demonstrating income were concealed.
- He cited previous judgments where maintenance was denied due to suppression of facts and sufficient income of the spouse.
- He also claimed that he was already paying maintenance to his mother under an order from the Ahmedabad Family Court (₹35,000/month), and thus his liabilities were not considered.
Court’s Analysis:
- The Court noted that while the wife is well-educated and previously employed, the appellant failed to produce any cogent material before the Family Court to establish that she was currently working.
- Income Tax Returns from prior years merely showed earnings of about ₹3 lakh per annum.
- Allegations that the wife was working at a particular academy were raised for the first time in the appellate proceedings, with no proof submitted before the Family Court. The Court clarified that these contentions could not be entertained for the first time in appeal and may be raised before the Family Court through appropriate legal remedies.
- The Court observed:
“Capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things and a wife may leave her job due to family circumstances or to take care of the child… she cannot be denied maintenance merely on the basis of her capability to earn.” - The Family Court had reasonably assessed the wife’s potential income at ₹25,000–₹30,000 per month, but still awarded ₹10,000 as maintenance, based on the husband’s actual income of ₹1,74,354 per month.
- The Court noted that the amount of ₹10,000 for the wife and ₹15,000 for the child was appropriate, keeping in view the high cost of living, needs of the growing child, and the social status of the parties.
On the claim regarding liability towards the appellant’s mother, the Court observed:
“The mother of the appellant is more appropriately considered a dependent of the father of the appellant, who receives pension of ₹35,000 per month.”
Additionally, the Court rejected any deductions or relief on account of personal loans:
“No relaxation for any personal loan or investment in a house can be given in matters of maintenance.”
Decision:
The Delhi High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. It held that the Family Court had rightly exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance. The pending applications under Section 340 CrPC and interrogatories were held to be outside the scope of this appeal and left to be adjudicated by the Family Court.
“Accordingly, the present appeal along with the pending applications stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit.”
The Court also directed that no observation in its judgment shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the pending matters before the Family Court.
