Delhi High Court Modifies Maintenance Amount Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.: “Able-Bodied Husband Must Support Wife and Children Despite Financial Claims,” Reduces Maintenance to ₹3,600 Per Respondent and Emphasizes Minimum Wage Assessment

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court modified the Family Court’s order determining maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Initially, the Family Court ordered the petitioner (husband) to pay ₹4,000 per month to each respondent (wife and two children), based on an estimated monthly income of ₹20,000. The High Court reassessed the petitioner’s income as ₹18,000 under the Minimum Wages Act and reduced the maintenance amount to ₹3,600 per respondent per month. The court upheld the legal principle that an able-bodied man cannot evade his moral and legal responsibilities to maintain his dependents, even in the absence of concrete proof of income.

Facts of the Case

1. Marriage and Separation: The petitioner and the respondent married in 2000, had two children, and lived together until 2011, when the respondent alleged she was thrown out of the matrimonial home with her children. Since then, the parties have lived separately.
2. Maintenance Claim: The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming the petitioner earned over ₹2 lakh monthly from his business and properties. She sought ₹20,000 for herself and ₹10,000 each for the children. The petitioner refuted these claims, stating his income was only ₹7,800 per month, and alleged that the respondent earned ₹10,000 from stitching work.
3. Family Court’s Order: The Family Court estimated the petitioner’s income at ₹20,000 per month, based on the Minimum Wages Act and judicial precedents. It awarded maintenance of ₹4,000 per month to each respondent (wife and two children).
4. High Court Challenge: The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the maintenance was excessive and claiming a lack of evidence to support the income estimation.

Issues Identified

1. Was the maintenance amount determined by the Family Court excessive?
2. Was the petitioner’s income correctly assessed by the Family Court?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. The Family Court ignored evidence, including the dismissal of the respondent’s domestic violence complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005. The petitioner claimed this dismissal undermined the respondent’s allegations of mistreatment.
2. The respondent had allegedly expressed willingness to reconcile but failed to return to the matrimonial home.
3. The petitioner argued that his actual income was ₹7,800 per month and that the Family Court’s assessment of ₹20,000 was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. The respondent countered that the Family Court’s order was based on a proper assessment of evidence and judicial precedents.
2. The maintenance amount was reasonable, given the petitioner’s obligation to support his family and provide a dignified standard of living.

Analysis of the Law

The court examined the principles underlying Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is designed to provide financial support to wives and children to prevent destitution. Several key legal precedents were considered:

1. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015): Maintenance is intended to ensure dignity and sustenance for a wife and children. It cannot be reduced to mere survival; the wife is entitled to live with the same dignity she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
2. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015): Financial excuses by an able-bodied husband are unacceptable. The law imposes a higher duty on husbands to ensure their wife and children are not left in financial distress.
3. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021): Even without specific evidence of income, an able-bodied man is presumed to have earning capacity sufficient to support his dependents.
4. Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004): Maintenance should be apportioned based on the total family income, with extra consideration for the earning spouse’s additional expenses.

The High Court emphasized that maintenance must provide dignity and security to dependents and that it is the husband’s responsibility to support his family, regardless of claimed financial constraints.

Precedent Analysis

The court applied the above precedents to the facts of the case:

• The petitioner’s claims of low income were unsupported by credible evidence.
• The petitioner, being able-bodied, was presumed capable of earning at least the minimum wage in Delhi.
• The Family Court’s division of income into shares (two shares for the petitioner and one share each for the wife and children) was upheld as consistent with Annurita Vohra.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Income Assessment: The High Court found that the Family Court’s estimation of ₹20,000 monthly income was slightly excessive, as there was no evidence of the petitioner being a skilled worker. The High Court reassessed his income as ₹18,000, based on minimum wages for unskilled laborers in Delhi.
2. Distribution of Income: Following the principle in Annurita Vohra, the court divided the petitioner’s income into five shares:
   • Two shares for the petitioner (to account for his own living expenses).
   • Three shares collectively for the respondents (wife and children).
   Based on this distribution, each respondent’s share was recalculated as ₹3,600 per month.
3. Legal Obligations: The court reiterated that an able-bodied man has an unequivocal legal obligation to provide financial support to his wife and children. It rejected the petitioner’s arguments of financial incapacity as unsubstantiated.
4. Dismissal of PWDVA Complaint: The court clarified that the dismissal of the domestic violence complaint did not negate the respondent’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as these are separate legal proceedings with distinct purposes.

Conclusion

The High Court modified the Family Court’s order, reducing the maintenance amount to ₹3,600 per month for each respondent. It upheld the principle that maintenance should ensure a dignified life for dependents and that financial excuses by an able-bodied husband are legally unacceptable.

Implications

1. Clarity on Income Estimation: The judgment provides guidance on assessing a husband’s income in the absence of concrete evidence, emphasizing reliance on minimum wages and judicial precedents.
2. Reaffirmation of Legal Duty: The ruling underscores the sacrosanct duty of husbands to maintain their families, highlighting the inability to escape this responsibility through claims of financial hardship.
3. Judicial Precedents as Guidelines: The judgment reinforces the importance of precedents in determining maintenance amounts, ensuring uniformity and fairness in family law cases.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Quashes IFS Officer’s Transfer Due to Procedural Irregularities: Holds Handwritten Alterations in Civil Services Board Minutes Render Decision Invalid, Leaves Open Question of State vs. Central Rules for Future Determination