The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a spouse who is capable of earning but decides to stay unemployed without a valid reason should not impose maintenance costs on their partner. The court emphasized that maintenance calculations do not require “mathematical precision” but should aim to provide fair relief to the spouse who cannot support themselves during divorce proceedings.
The division bench, led by Justices V Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, made this observation while reducing the maintenance amount initially set by a family court. The maintenance amount was cut from ₹30,000 to ₹21,000.
The court noted that a spouse with reasonable earning capacity, who remains unemployed without making genuine efforts to find a job, should not burden the other party with financial responsibilities. This principle applies equally to both genders under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
In the case before the court, the husband had challenged an order requiring him to pay ₹30,000 per month to his wife during the divorce proceedings. His lawyer argued that he was already paying ₹21,000 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) and claimed the amount was increased unfairly.
The husband claimed that his low income, combined with his responsibilities towards his siblings, parents, and a loan for his brother’s marriage, made the higher maintenance amount difficult to manage. He also highlighted that his wife, who had previously earned ₹25,000 as a hospital receptionist, was now working as a social worker without a salary.
The court reviewed the husband’s financial situation, noting his net salary of ₹56,492 after deductions. It also found that the family court had not provided reasons for increasing the maintenance. The court acknowledged the husband’s other financial responsibilities and observed that the wife, despite having a Delhi University education, had chosen social work over more lucrative employment.
The court reduced the interim maintenance to ₹21,000 but decided it would automatically increase by ₹1,500 each year to account for inflation. This ruling reflects a balance between the financial capacities and responsibilities of both parties.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
