Husband Can't Avoid Paying Maintenance To Wife, Children By Claiming Lack Of Regular Income: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a husband cannot evade his obligation to maintain his wife and children merely by claiming that he does not have a regular source of income.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.11,000 per month each to his wife and two daughters.
Petitioner-husband had challenged the Family Court's October 2024 judgment, contending that he worked on a contractual basis without a stable income and was suffering from various ailments, including tuberculosis, diabetes and heart problems.
He also claimed that he had responsibilities towards his elderly mother and outstanding loans.
It was further argued that the wife was a qualified commerce graduate who was capable of maintaining herself and had previously worked with a private company, which she allegedly did not disclose in her income affidavit.
Opposing the plea, the wife submitted that the husband's claims regarding illness, financial distress and liabilities had never been raised before the Family Court and could not be introduced for the first time in revision proceedings.
The High Court noted that the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction was extremely limited and that the husband had failed to show any perversity or illegality in the Family Court's findings.
On merits, the Court held that the husband failed to produce any evidence to establish that the wife was financially capable of supporting herself and the two daughters.
It further observed,
“the argument canvassed by the petitioner that he is unable to pay the maintenance on the ground that he has no regular source of income and, therefore, not in a position to pay the maintenance, is not acceptable.”
Reliance was placed on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022) where the Supreme Court held that a husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children and it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, even by doing physical labour.
The Court also took note of the husband's own pleadings showing that he possessed technical expertise and had previously earned substantial salaries.
Salary slips placed on record reflected that he was drawing around Rs.40,000 per month during 2021, while his bank statements showed repeated credit entries, including one of nearly Rs.60,000.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Appearance: Mr. Vijay Kinger, Ms. Roopa Nagpal, Mr Hemant Kumar, Mr. Himanshu Kinger and Mr. Ashwani Gehlot, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Mr. Satyam Upadhyay, Advs. with respondent in person
Case title: LKS v. NS
Case no.: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 177/2024