Delhi HC Emphasises Dignity In Maintenance Cases: “Financial Support Delayed Is Dignity Denied” [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment, emphasizing that maintenance is not merely a monetary obligation but a legal and moral duty aimed at preserving the dignity and security of dependent spouses and children.

Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma made crucial observations on the impact of delayed maintenance payments and rejected the argument that voluntary financial commitments should reduce maintenance awards.

The court was hearing a revision petition challenging an order by the Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, which had awarded ₹45,000 per month as interim maintenance—₹22,500 each for the wife and the minor child—under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court noted the petitioner’s employment status, observing, “The petitioner-husband is gainfully employed as a Software Engineer with TLG India, earning ₹1,05,000 per month, as admitted in his own affidavit.”

Responding to the husband’s claim that EMI payments reduced his capacity to pay maintenance, the court held, “It is well settled that such voluntary financial obligations, especially when incurred for ancestral property that does not exclusively belong to the petitioner, cannot be considered as mandatory deductions while determining maintenance.”

The court made strong observations on the emotional toll of delayed payments, stating, “While the petitioner continues to sleep in peace, secure in the knowledge of his regular income and resources, the respondent suffers in silence, grappling with uncertainty and anxiety about how she will meet her basic needs if maintenance is not paid in a timely manner.”

In a landmark observation, the court declared, “Financial support delayed is dignity denied,” underscoring that timely maintenance is essential not just for subsistence but for preserving the dignity of those legally entitled to support.

The court also dismissed the husband’s claim of having to support aged parents, noting, “The petitioner’s claim regarding his parents being financially dependent upon him remains completely unsupported by any documentary evidence.”

Modifying the Family Court’s order, the High Court directed: “The interim maintenance payable to respondent no.1-wife shall remain ₹22,500 per month; however, respondent no.2/minor child shall be entitled to interim maintenance of ₹17,500 per month.”

The judgment reaffirmed the legislative intent behind maintenance provisions, stating they are meant “to ensure financial stability and a sense of security for the dependent spouse and child,” and “to prevent precisely the kind of fear, helplessness, and financial insecurity” that arise from delayed payments.

The court also clarified that only statutory and mandatory deductions from income are permissible when calculating maintenance, rejecting deductions claimed for voluntary EMIs, house rent, and unsubstantiated familial obligations.

Mr. Hari Shankar, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner, while Ms. Payal Seth appeared as Amicus Curiae for the respondents.

Case Title: Sh. Lalit Mohan Mahara v. Smt. Meenakshi Mahara & Anr.

[Read Judgment]