Maintenance Must Balance Spouses' Rights, Liabilities And Earning Capacity : Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has reduced an award of interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month, holding that a Family Court granting maintenance cannot be oblivious of the cumulative variables involved and must strike a balance between the rights and liabilities of both spouses, rather than looking solely at the husband's income.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing a revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging an order of the Family Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, dated June 5, 2024, granting the respondent-wife interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of her application.

The parties' marriage was solemnised in 1995, and two children were born of the wedlock. Following marital differences, the respondent-wife sought maintenance under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. in April 2021. An ad-interim maintenance of ₹25,000 was awarded in January 2022, which the Family Court subsequently enhanced to ₹30,000 through the impugned order.

Mr. Piyush Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the facts and status of the parties, pointing out that the petitioner alone bore the financial burden of the children, including an elder daughter pursuing an admittedly expensive MBBS course; that the respondent, an MBA Finance graduate, was well-qualified and capable of earning for herself; that she had rental income as well as interest income from fixed deposits; that she resided in a house bought by the petitioner; and that the petitioner had multiple loans to repay. Reliance was placed on Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi and Bharat Hedge v. Shrimati Saroj to argue that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and that the status of the parties, the claimant's independent income, and the non-applicant's liabilities and payment capacity must all be weighed in determining the quantum of maintenance.

Ms. Shruti Gupta, counsel for the respondent, countered that the Family Court had considered the petitioner's income affidavit, including an Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2022-23 reflecting an income exceeding ₹63 lakh from his cargo business, and had passed the impugned order after appreciating all the facts and documents on record. She submitted that the petition amounted to a misuse and abuse of the process of law and was liable to be dismissed.

The Court examined the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, which had endorsed the eleven factors set out by a Coordinate Bench in Bharat Hedge v. Smt. Saroj Hegde for determining maintenance, including the status of the parties, the claimant's reasonable wants and independent income, the number of persons the non-applicant must maintain, and the non-applicant's payment capacity. It also referred to Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, where the Supreme Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to do so.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court noted that both children resided with the petitioner, who alone bore their educational and financial needs; that the respondent resided, at her sole disposal, in a three-bedroom flat purchased by the petitioner; that the respondent held an MBA in Finance as well as diplomas in astrology and was well capable of earning for herself; that she additionally earned rental income of ₹10,450 and FD interest of ₹4,400 per month; and that the petitioner had, even before the grant of ad-interim maintenance, been voluntarily paying ₹20,000 per month.

The Court found that while the Family Court had noted these factors, it had not given them due weightage and had tilted its decision solely towards the petitioner's income:

“Although this Court is mindful that the petitioner is a man of means, however, the Court granting interim maintenance, cannot be oblivious of the cumulative variables which ought to be considered, especially since a balance has to be struck between the rights and liabilities of the applicant and non-applicant as also the primary intent of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented and/or not given effect to.”

Accordingly, the Court held that interference with the impugned order was warranted and reduced the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month, payable with effect from the date of filing of her application in April 2021, and disposed of the petition in these terms.

Appearances: Mr. Piyush Gupta, Ms. Isha Kapoor, Mr. Jai Saini and Adv. Sudhanshu Sharma, Advocates appeared for the petitioner, while Ms. Shruti Gupta appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Petitioner-Husband vs. Respondent-Wife, CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024