The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on maintenance laws, has upheld a Family Court’s decision to deny maintenance to a wife who concealed her true income. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma affirmed that a wife who does not provide a clear picture of her financial status fails to prove her inability to maintain herself, a primary condition for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). However, the court sustained the maintenance awarded to the minor child, emphasizing that a father’s obligation is absolute and independent of parental disputes.
The judgment was delivered on two connected criminal revision petitions filed by a husband and wife, both challenging a judgment dated May 4, 2022, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
Case Background
The parties were married on November 27, 2009, and have a child born on August 28, 2010. The wife left the matrimonial home, alleging physical, mental, and financial harassment by her husband and in-laws. She subsequently filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking Rs. 30,000 per month in maintenance (Rs. 20,000 for herself and Rs. 10,000 for the child). She claimed her husband worked as a Senior Electrician, earning approximately Rs. 55,000 per month.
The Family Court partly allowed the petition, directing the husband to pay Rs. 16,000 per month for the maintenance of the minor child. However, it denied maintenance to the wife, observing that she had concealed her real income and failed to produce recent salary certificates.
Arguments Before the High Court
The wife, in her revision petition, contended that the Family Court had erroneously denied her maintenance, disregarding her financial hardships. Her counsel argued she was a temporary teacher in Uttar Pradesh earning a “meagre salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month,” while her husband earned between Rs. 60,000-70,000 and lived a luxurious life.
Conversely, the husband’s counsel supported the denial of maintenance to the wife, arguing that she “suppressed material facts regarding her real income” and had left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause. In his own revision petition, the husband challenged the Rs. 16,000 per month awarded to the child, claiming it was “excessive” and that the Family Court had not properly considered his financial condition.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma began by noting that “Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is a beneficial provision, premised on a moral obligation of husband and father, and intended to prevent, inter alia, the wife and children from being subjected to the adversities of vagrancy and destitution.”
On the Wife’s Claim for Maintenance:
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence on record. It noted that the wife had admitted in her cross-examination to being employed. A salary slip from December 2016 showed her salary as Rs. 33,052, and her income tax return for the assessment year 2017-2018 disclosed an annual income of Rs. 4,00,724. While she claimed her service was later terminated and she was re-employed on a temporary basis for only Rs. 10,000 per month, she failed to substantiate this claim.
The court observed, “she failed to produce any recent salary slip or Form-16 to substantiate the same, and thus, no recent salary certificate was placed before the learned Family Court despite opportunities.”
The High Court concurred with the Family Court’s reasoning, stating it “rightly reached to a conclusion that such omission, without any cogent explanation, casts a doubt on the genuineness of her claim and justifies an adverse inference against her.” The judgment held that the “primary ingredient for grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. her inability to maintain herself has not been satisfactorily proved.”
On the Minor Child’s Maintenance:
Regarding the child’s maintenance, the court was unequivocal. It stated, “the law is settled that a child’s right to maintenance is independent of the disputes between her parents, and the father is bound to maintain the children.”
The husband had admitted to an income of Rs. 56,200 per month from his job with Northern Railways, supplemented by agricultural income, making his total monthly income approximately Rs. 58,000. The High Court found the award of Rs. 16,000 per month, constituting “roughly one-third of the husband’s income,” could not be termed excessive.
Justice Sharma reasoned, “On the contrary, it commensurate with his means and the necessary financial support required to meet the educational, medical, and other day-to-day requirements of a growing child.” The court also noted that the husband had not placed any material on record to demonstrate any other significant financial liabilities.
Decision
Finding no “perversity or illegality” in the reasoning of the Family Court, the High Court concluded that its determination was just and reasonable.
“The reasoning recorded by the Family Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference in these revision petitions,” the court ordered.
Accordingly, both revision petitions were dismissed.
