The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and daughter. The Court observed that a well-qualified, “able-bodied” man cannot avoid his “sacrosanct duty” to support his family by claiming a lack of income following voluntary retirement.
Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the matter, upheld the Family Court’s assessment of the petitioner’s income at ₹50,000 per month, despite his claims of being a mere pensioner and a small-scale agriculturist with meagre earnings.
Background of the Case
The petitioner moved the High Court against a judgment dated December 22, 2022, passed by the Family Court, East District, Karkardooma. The Family Court had awarded maintenance of ₹8,300 per month each to the respondents (the wife and daughter) and the petitioner’s son until the son attained majority on March 2, 2021. Thereafter, the maintenance was increased to ₹10,000 per month for each of the two respondents. The Family Court also directed a 10% increase in the amount every two years and awarded litigation expenses of ₹11,000.
The parties have been living separately since 2013, with the wife taking care of the children.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife was in possession of a matrimonial house, which she allegedly let out for financial gain while residing at her paternal home. He further contended that the wife’s refusal to reside with the petitioner disentitled her to maintenance.
Regarding his financial status, the petitioner submitted that he is no longer employed with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and is a B.Com graduate who took voluntary retirement in July 2022. He claimed his current income consists only of a pension of approximately ₹21,000 to ₹25,000 and “meagre” agricultural income from a small portion of land.
Conversely, the respondents’ counsel submitted that the petitioner was misleading the Court with outdated Minimum Support Price (MSP) rates and that the wife is a homemaker with no source of income, while the children are pursuing higher education.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008), noting that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent “vagrancy and destitution” and to provide a “speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter.”
On the issue of the wife’s eligibility, the Court found that she had made “categorical allegations of cruelty,” which satisfied the legal threshold. It held that her possession of the matrimonial house did not signify that the petitioner did not neglect his duties.
Regarding the petitioner’s voluntary retirement at the age of 47, the Court expressed skepticism:
“Quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well-qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well. It appears to be implausible that the petitioner would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income.”
The Court emphasized that as a B.Com graduate and an “able-bodied man,” the petitioner is obliged to earn. Citing Anju Garg and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022), the Court noted:
“The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.”
The Court also addressed the Family Court’s calculation regarding the petitioner’s mother, noting that while she was erroneously granted a full share despite having a family pension and another son, the overall maintenance amount remained reasonable when considering the petitioner’s potential earning capacity.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s assessment of the petitioner’s income at ₹50,000 was not excessive. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims regarding the wife’s rental income, noting that the property in question had since been sold to purchase a residence for the respondents.
Finding no grounds for interference, Justice Mahajan dismissed the revision petition and all pending applications.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. Seema Devi & Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 452/2023
- Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan
- Date: March 16, 2026
