In a revision petition filed before the Delhi High Court, a husband challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby his appeal was dismissed, and an order of interim maintenance by the Trial Court (MM, Mahila Court) was upheld, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma affirmed the impugned order while holding that the interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month awarded to the wife was just and reasonable.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03-12-2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The husband mentioned that at the time of the marriage, the wife was aware that he was not employed and had been nominated as a member of the Telephone Advisory Committee for 2 years without salary.
Soon after marriage, disputes arose between the parties. The wife alleged that throughout the marriage, she was subjected to abuse by the husband and his family. She also mentioned that her husband was an alcoholic who mistreated her and even tried to burn her hand, which left a permanent scar. It was submitted that the husband had unlawfully withheld all her jewellery, valued at approximately Rs. 20 lakhs.
In August 2019, the parties shifted from the matrimonial home to a rented accommodation, and the lease deed was executed in the name of the husband’s mother, who continued to pay rent under pressure from the husband. It was alleged that the termination of the lease deed was a deliberate act to deprive the wife of support.
The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the husband and his mother. By order dated 20-07-2024, the Trial Court directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved, the husband preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, and by the impugned order, the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal.
The Court noted that the material on record did not bear out the husband’s claim of unemployment, as his bank statements showed recurring financial transactions in his account through certain entities. It was also noted that his ITR for AY 2019-20 reflected a gross income of Rs. 9,12,586/-. Further, the Court said that the photographs on record showed that the husband had a lifestyle inconsistent with the financial hardship he claimed.
The Court observed that the husband’s reliance on the wife’s inherited, family-gifted assets and parents’ background to deny her maintenance was legally untenable. The Court opined that stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income to defeat her claim for maintenance. It was stated that the claim must be assessed in light of the wife’s present ability to maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to during her marriage, rather than on the financial status of her natal family.
Further, the Court refused to accept the husband’s contention that the wife was highly educated, holding various degrees, and earning more than Rs. 13,00,000/- per annum. The Court noted that right after marriage, the couple resided in a lavish farmhouse with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,25,000/- and subsequently moved to a premium residential accommodation. It was clear that the husband came from a business family and had been receiving substantial financial support from his parents.
The Court clarified that, in adjudicating the issue of maintenance, it considers not only the husband’s income and assets, but also the earnings and profits derived from any family business in which he has a share. In furtherance, the Court stated that the documents produced by the husband could not establish a regular or recurring source of income for the wife.
Thus, the Court held that the Trial Court had rightly recorded that the wife was unemployed and financially dependent. It was also held that maintenance is not to be determined by arithmetic precision, but by ensuring that the dependent spouse can live with reasonable comfort, consistent with the status enjoyed during matrimony.
The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and stated that the quantum of maintenance was reasonable, just, and commensurate with the wife’s needs and the husband’s financial capacity. Hence, the petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Janvi Vohra, Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Veenu Singh, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Ms. Aamya
For Respondent – Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha
