Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹45,000 per month to his estranged wife and minor daughter. The High Court upheld the grant of ₹22,500 per month to the wife but reduced the child’s maintenance from ₹22,500 to ₹17,500 per month after accounting for the petitioner’s payment of school fees. The Court reaffirmed that only statutory deductions can be considered while computing income for maintenance purposes and voluntary EMI payments for ancestral property cannot dilute a statutory right.
Facts
The petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife were married in February 2015. They have a minor daughter born in August 2017 who lives with the mother. Alleging acts of cruelty by the petitioner and his family, the wife left the matrimonial home and filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹45,000 per month — ₹22,500 each for the wife and the child — from the date of filing till final disposal. Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision petition arguing the Family Court did not consider his financial liabilities including aged parents’ dependence, home loan EMIs of ₹66,216 per month, and rent for his current residence. He contended that these liabilities, coupled with his payment of the child’s school fees, render him financially incapable of paying the awarded amount.
Issues
- Whether voluntary EMI obligations can be deducted while determining quantum of maintenance.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of financial dependency of his parents can be a ground to reduce maintenance.
- Whether the Family Court’s order required interference for lack of reasons or failure to account for relevant expenses.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Family Court passed a non-speaking order without adequate reasoning and failed to consider his genuine financial constraints. He claimed he resides in a rented home, bears sole responsibility for his aged, dependent parents, and has significant loan liabilities totaling ₹35 lakhs for constructing a house at his native place. He emphasized that his monthly income of ₹1,05,000 cannot sustain such liabilities along with the awarded maintenance. He contended that the wife’s income affidavit was unreliable and inflated the expenses. He highlighted that he was already paying ₹5,500 per month towards the daughter’s school fees, showing his willingness to fulfill parental duties.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent’s counsel, the amicus curiae appointed by the Court, argued that the petition was devoid of merit and that the Family Court rightly applied settled principles for computing maintenance. She submitted that the husband admitted earning ₹1,05,000 monthly as a Software Engineer, with no evidence rebutting this. She highlighted that under the precedent in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, income must be equitably apportioned: two parts for the husband, one for the wife, and one for the child. She contended that deductions for voluntary EMIs or unsupported claims of parental dependence are impermissible under binding precedent. It was argued that the wife has no independent income and is completely dependent on maintenance for herself and the child, who is only six years old. Allegations of cruelty and illicit relationships by the husband further underscored the wife’s financial hardship and need for maintenance.
Analysis of the Law
The Court thoroughly analysed statutory and case law governing maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Citing Sodan Singh Rawat v. Vipinta, Abhinav Kumar v. Swati & Anr., and Chanchal Verma v. Anurag Verma, it reiterated that only statutory deductions like income tax or provident fund contributions can reduce the net income for maintenance calculation. Voluntary liabilities such as home loan EMIs for ancestral property are not permissible deductions. The Court emphasized the principle that an earning spouse cannot reduce carry-home pay by incurring discretionary liabilities to avoid paying fair maintenance.
The Court reaffirmed the apportionment rule laid down in Annurita Vohra and noted that despite the husband’s claim of a loan under Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana, the Family Court had already extended benefit of a ₹15,000 deduction in good faith.
Precedent Analysis
- Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: Laid down the equitable apportionment principle for maintenance — income divided as two parts for the husband, one for the wife, and one for the child.
- Sodan Singh Rawat v. Vipinta and Abhinav Kumar v. Swati & Anr.: Reiterated that only statutory deductions are permissible for computing income.
- Chanchal Verma v. Anurag Verma and Nitin Sharma v. Sunita: Affirmed that voluntary deductions like EMIs, LIC, or utility bills do not reduce maintenance obligations.
- Seema v. Gourav Juneja (Punjab & Haryana High Court): Husband cannot shirk responsibility by availing loans and paying EMIs to reduce maintenance liability.
- Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari (SC): Reinforced that only compulsory deductions should be excluded from income.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the petitioner’s claims unsubstantiated. No evidence was produced to prove his parents’ dependence or necessity of loans. The property for which the EMI is being paid is ancestral and owned by the father, not the petitioner alone. Therefore, EMIs are not mandatory deductions. The Court stressed that maintenance is a legal right, not charity, and any delay directly impacts the dignity and sustenance of the dependent spouse and child. The Court remarked:
“Financial support delayed is dignity denied.”
It acknowledged that the father’s payment of ₹5,500 per month as school fees deserved consideration. Accordingly, it reduced the child’s maintenance portion by ₹5,000 but found no ground to disturb the maintenance awarded to the wife.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s interim maintenance award with a slight modification: the wife shall continue to receive ₹22,500 per month, while the child shall receive ₹17,500 per month considering the direct payment of school fees. The Court directed that any interim maintenance already paid shall be adjusted against future final maintenance. The petition was dismissed with appreciation for the amicus curiae’s assistance.
Implications
This judgment strengthens the settled position that earning spouses cannot claim voluntary financial obligations as shields against paying fair maintenance. It underlines the consistent principle that statutory deductions alone are allowed when computing income for maintenance, thus safeguarding the financial dignity and rights of dependent spouses and children.
FAQs
1. Can a husband reduce maintenance by showing home loan EMIs?
No. Courts consistently hold that voluntary EMIs for ancestral or self-acquired property are not valid deductions while calculating maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
2. Does delay in paying maintenance matter if arrears are small?
Yes. Even a single day’s delay undermines the dependent’s financial security and dignity. Timely disbursal is crucial.
3. What if the husband’s parents are financially dependent?
Dependence must be proved with credible documents. Mere oral claims without proof cannot justify reducing statutory maintenance.
