Bank Transactions Alone Can't Be Treated As Husband's Monthly Disposable Income For Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that bank transactions cannot automatically be treated as equivalent to monthly disposable income of the husband while determining maintenance to be awarded to a wife.

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a wife's petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance awarded to her by a Family Court.

The Court clarified that maintenance cannot be determined by applying a fixed percentage to the earning spouse's income and that courts must undertake an overall assessment of the financial circumstances and reasonable needs of both parties.

“The Court is required to undertake an overall assessment of the financial circumstances and reasonable needs of the parties,” the Court observed.

The petitioner wife had challenged the Family Court's order awarding her interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month. The Family Court had assessed her husband's monthly income at Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 90,000.

Seeking enhancement, the wife contended that the amount was inadequate in view of her lack of independent income, her educational and other expenses, and the husband's financial capacity. She also relied on his bank transactions and alleged discrepancies in the income affidavits filed by him.

Rejecting her plea, the Court observed that the mere existence of transactions in a bank account does not establish that the amounts constitute monthly disposable income.

“…. the mere existence of transactions in a bank account cannot, without examination of their nature and source, automatically be treated as equivalent to monthly disposable income. The precise nature of such transactions and the respondent's actual financial position can be examined by the learned Family Court on the basis of complete evidence,” the Court said.

It also observed that while the wife's lack of independent income and claimed expenditure were relevant considerations, every expenditure claimed by a party could not automatically become the amount payable as maintenance.

The Court emphasised that the reasonable needs must be determined in the context of the overall financial circumstances of both parties.

Justice Jain held that the wife failed to establish any patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

While dismissing the plea, the Court clarified that the wife would remain at liberty to seek modification of interim maintenance before the Family Court in accordance with law, particularly if there was a material change in circumstances.

The Court also clarified that the observations in its order would not prejudice either party during the final adjudication of the pending proceedings.