Retirement Corpus Is Not Monthly Income, Denies Interim Maintenance To Retired Teacher: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by a retired Central Government teacher against the refusal of pendente lite maintenance from her husband, a retired Army officer, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that a retirement corpus is accumulated capital and cannot be treated as monthly income, but that, on the income and resources she had disclosed, she did not satisfy the statutory requirement of having no independent income sufficient for her support.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar delivered the judgment in an appeal which challenged the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in HMA No. 794 of 2019, a petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, in which the wife's application for interim maintenance had been dismissed.

The parties were married on 16.10.1983, and their two children, born in 1984 and 1988, are now adults. The wife alleged persistent discord and abuse, and the husband left the matrimonial home in October 2019. The Family Court noted that the wife received a pension of Rs. 27,759 per month, interest on fixed deposits and retirement benefits exceeding Rs. 50 lakh, that both parties were over 60, retired and receiving pension, that their children were well settled, and concluded that her income was, if not greater than, at least equal to the husband's.

The wife argued that the Family Court wrongly treated her retirement corpus and savings as a continuing source of income, though she had to use them for day-to-day expenses, and failed to consider the husband's assets, investments, and income from his training business, Colonel's Learning Café. During the appeal, by an order dated 20.02.2023, the court directed both parties to file fresh affidavits, and she disclosed a pension of about Rs. 35,329 per month and interest income of Rs. 34,000 per month, making recurring income of about Rs. 69,000, against monthly expenditure of Rs. 1,16,150.

Relying on Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain and Rajnesh v. Neha, the court reiterated that Section 24 gives a wide but judicial discretion, that it is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the applicant is educated and could support herself, and that the quantum depends on the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the applicant and the capacity of the other spouse to pay.

The court clarified that a distinction has to be made between the retirement corpus and the income generated from it: the corpus is accumulated capital that cannot be treated as monthly income merely because it is substantial, though interest or returns it actually generates are income and the corpus remains part of the overall financial circumstances. It also said that the mere assertion of an expenditure figure is not conclusive, that expenses must be assessed for reasonableness, and that discretionary expenditure cannot automatically be fastened on the other spouse.

On the husband's position, the court noted his fresh affidavit disclosing a pension of about Rs. 1,09,000 per month, investments of about Rs. 73 lakh in shares, mutual funds and bonds and Rs. 16.50 lakh in PPF, and his obligation towards his mother, aged about 87. It held that his higher pension is relevant but not by itself sufficient to grant maintenance, as Section 24 does not proceed on the principle that the lower-earning spouse must be paid. It declined to attribute income to him from Colonel's Learning Café, as he stated it no longer generated income and there was no material to show otherwise, adding that donations by themselves do not prove an undisclosed recurring source of income.

Concluding that the wife has a regular pension, recurring investment income and accumulated resources, and no dependent children, the court held that she did not satisfy the statutory requirement of having no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. It said it did not affirm the Family Court's reasoning that the entire retirement corpus is income, or that maintenance is unavailable merely because the incomes are comparable, but held that the ultimate conclusion did not call for interference. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Aashna Talwar, Mr. Mayank Grover and Ms. Akriti Tyagi, Advocates, with the Appellant in person.

For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Jaiswal, Advocate, with the Respondent in person.

Case Title: M vs. V, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 109/2022

[Read Judgment]