Husband's Pension-Receiving Parents Can't Be Treated As Fully Dependent To Reduce Wife, Child's Maintenance: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that while a man has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his elderly parents, however, such parents receiving regular pension cannot be treated as “fully dependent” on him so as to substantially reduce the maintenance payable to his wife and minor child.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while setting aside a Family Court order which...
The Delhi High Court has held that while a man has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his elderly parents, however, such parents receiving regular pension cannot be treated as “fully dependent” on him so as to substantially reduce the maintenance payable to his wife and minor child.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while setting aside a Family Court order which had awarded maintenance of ₹8,000 per month to a wife and ₹5,000 per month to the minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC.
The Family Court had assessed the husband's net income at about ₹50,833 per month after deducting housing loan, vehicle loan and other liabilities from his gross salary of nearly ₹1 lakh per month. It had further treated the husband's mother as dependent upon him and apportioned the income into five shares while calculating maintenance.
Before the High Court, the wife argued that the Family Court had wrongly reduced the husband's income by considering non-statutory deductions and had also erred in substantially reducing the maintenance amount on the assumption that the husband's mother was fully dependent on him despite receiving pension.
Agreeing with the contention, the High Court observed that the extent of dependency of parents has to be assessed on the basis of their financial position. It said,
“While it is true that a son has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his parents, the extent of such dependency has to be assessed on the basis of the financial position of the parent. Where the parent is receiving a regular pension, the dependency cannot be treated as absolute so as to substantially reduce the share of the wife and minor child.”
The Court held that the Family Court had mechanically treated the husband's mother as fully dependent without properly considering the fact that she was receiving pension.
The High Court also found fault with the Family Court's approach of calculating maintenance on the basis of net salary after deducting EMIs towards housing and vehicle loans.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it reiterated that repayment of personal loans and EMIs voluntarily undertaken by the earning spouse cannot be treated as permissible deductions so as to dilute or override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child.
The Court further observed that there was no material to show that the wife was actually earning and held that mere earning capacity cannot be a ground to deny or reduce maintenance.
Holding that the Family Court's approach had resulted in a maintenance amount “apparently disproportionate” to the husband's admitted gross income of about ₹1 lakh per month, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh determination of maintenance within one month.
Appearance: Ms. Divya Malhotra, Advocate for Petitioners; Ms Sneha Rani, Mr Abhishek Verma and Mr. Satayam Singh, Advocates for R-2.
Case title: J & Anr. v. State
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 993/2024