Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court partly allowed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging a Family Court order that had denied maintenance to the wife and granted only ₹35,000 per month for the minor daughter. The Court enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹1,50,000 cumulatively for the wife and daughter, holding that the Family Court erred in assuming that the wife’s earnings of ₹1.25 lakh per month were sufficient. It emphasized that the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is to ensure parity in the standard of living and to avoid economic hardship. Save for this modification, the other directions of the Family Court were upheld.
Facts
The marriage was solemnized on 22.11.2013 in Delhi, and a daughter was born on 08.08.2016. The couple separated in October 2019, with the child remaining in the custody of the wife.
The husband, employed as a Senior Computer Scientist at Adobe Systems, USA, earning over ₹1 crore annually, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In response, the wife, an Assistant Professor earning ₹1.25 lakh per month, filed an application under Section 24 HMA seeking interim maintenance for herself and the child.
On 01.03.2024, the Family Court ordered the husband to pay ₹35,000 per month along with all school-related expenses for the child but denied any maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved, she appealed, seeking ₹3.5 lakh monthly maintenance for herself and ₹96,000 per month for the child.
Issues
- Whether the Family Court erred in denying maintenance to the wife despite significant financial disparity.
- Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded for the minor daughter was adequate.
- Whether the wife’s employment and earnings disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 24 HMA.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The wife argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate the stark financial disparity. While the husband earned over ₹10 lakhs per month, she earned just about ₹1.25 lakhs. The maintenance of ₹35,000 for the child was wholly inadequate, and denying her own maintenance was unjust.
She further submitted that the husband had concealed material financial details, including restricted stock units (RSUs), foreign assets, and other perks, thereby misleading the Court. She stressed that the child’s lifestyle should reflect the father’s financial capacity, and that incidental and non-receipted expenses for education and upbringing had been ignored.
Respondent’s Arguments
The husband argued that the wife was highly qualified and financially independent, earning a respectable income. He contended that Section 24 HMA is not meant to create an “army of idle persons” and cited Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal (2000 (3) MPLJ 100) to argue that capable spouses should not be granted maintenance.
He further relied on Delhi High Court rulings in Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta (2016) and Niharika Ghosh v. Shankar Ghosh (2023), where maintenance was declined to working wives who had concealed income. The husband also highlighted that he had voluntarily contributed ₹19,20,555 towards the child’s expenses, including ₹35,000 per month and school fees, and argued that the wife was enjoying a more comfortable lifestyle post-separation than during marriage.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasized that the test under Section 24 HMA is not whether the wife is employed, but whether her income is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living as during the marriage. The Court found a stark disparity: the husband’s annual income exceeded ₹1.3 crores, while the wife earned just ₹15 lakhs annually.
The Court rejected the Family Court’s reasoning that the wife was self-sufficient. It stressed that maintenance aims to ensure fairness and dignity, not to equalize incomes, but to bridge the disparity so that the financially weaker spouse and child are not disadvantaged.
Precedent Analysis
- Nidhi Sudan v. Manish Kumar Khanna (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7652): Held that an earning wife is not barred from maintenance; adequacy of income is the key factor.
- Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316): Maintenance cannot be denied merely because the wife earns; it must be sufficient for sustenance.
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324): Laid down guidelines for determining maintenance, emphasizing lifestyle parity.
- Referred to Shailja v. Khobbanna, Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, and Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, which collectively clarified that earning potential or modest income does not disqualify a wife from maintenance.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the Family Court had erred in treating the wife’s income as sufficient without considering the qualitative disparity in financial status. It observed that the wife’s income, though steady, did not enable her or the child to maintain the standard of living enjoyed during cohabitation.
The Court stressed that maintenance is meant to prevent economic hardship and ensure dignity, particularly when the financial burden of raising a child rests primarily on one parent. Considering the husband’s vast income and the needs of the wife and child, the Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹1.5 lakh per month.
Conclusion
The appeal was partly allowed. The High Court enhanced the maintenance from ₹35,000 to ₹1,50,000 per month cumulatively for the wife and child. It affirmed that an earning wife is not disqualified from claiming maintenance if her income is insufficient to match the standard of living in the matrimonial home.
Implications
This ruling is significant for matrimonial jurisprudence, clarifying that courts must consider not only whether a spouse is earning but also whether their income ensures parity in lifestyle. It underscores that maintenance is not charity but a legal right, ensuring fairness where financial disparities exist. The judgment is a reminder that children are entitled to enjoy the standard of living of the financially dominant parent.
FAQs
Q1. Can an earning wife claim maintenance under Section 24 HMA?
Yes. The Court held that an earning wife is entitled to maintenance if her income is insufficient to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during marriage.
Q2. How did the Court calculate the enhanced maintenance?
By considering the stark financial disparity, the husband’s high earnings, and the needs of the wife and child, the Court fixed ₹1.5 lakh per month as just and fair.
Q3. Does maintenance equalize incomes of spouses?
No. The object is not to equalize incomes but to prevent economic hardship and ensure a comparable lifestyle for the financially weaker spouse.
