Able-Bodied Person Cannot Shirk Responsibility to Maintain Wife and Children, Says Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that an able-bodied man cannot escape his responsibility to maintain his wife and children.

Rejecting a husband’s plea citing unemployment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a detailed judgment, said the objective of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is to ensure that a dependent spouse is not left in destitution or vagrancy during the pendency of proceedings.

“The provision is a social justice measure and must be interpreted in light of its underlying object – to prevent financial hardship and starvation of the neglected spouse and children,” the court said.

Court was hearing a revision plea filed by the husband, challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs 50,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife and their minor son. The couple got married on May 26, 2017. A son was born on August 23, 2019. The wife later filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC along with a plea for interim maintenance.

She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family and claimed that he earned over Rs 4 lakh a month through rental income. She also said Rs 2 lakh per month was needed for the upkeep of herself and the child.

The Family Court had directed the man to pay Rs 50,000 per month from the date of filing the plea until further orders.

Challenging the order, the husband’s lawyer argued that the trial court had relied solely on the wife’s version without considering the facts properly. It was also claimed that Rs 50,000 was an excessive amount, especially since the husband was unemployed and dependent on his mother, who is suffering from a stage-three brain tumour.

Husband's lawyer further alleged that the wife was well-qualified, capable of earning on her own, and had suppressed financial details, including an undisclosed bank account. He said the trial court’s decision violated principles of natural justice and was based on a flawed assessment of the man’s income and liabilities.

However, the state’s counsel supported the family court order, calling it well-reasoned. He added that Rs 50,000 was a justified amount, considering the needs of the woman and child, and the lifestyle they had during the marriage. It is argued that the petitioner’s claims of unemployment and financial hardship are unsubstantiated, particularly in light of the admitted existence of ancestral properties generating rental income. 

After hearing both sides, the high court said,“This court is of the view that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to provide immediate relief to a spouse and minor children who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves. While the right to fair opportunity and adherence to natural justice are essential, it is equally true that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the very purpose of the provision.”

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, wherein the court reiterated that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and children. It further held that excuses such as unemployment or reduced income cannot be accepted unless backed by compelling evidence.

The court upheld the Rs 50,000 interim maintenance, stating it was appropriate considering the standard of living and needs of the minor child.

"This Court finds no reason to interfere with the interim maintenance amount of ₹50,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court, which appears to be proportionate to the standard of living of the parties and the needs of the minor child," the court said.

Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error, the high court dismissed the husband’s revision plea.

Case Title: P vs. S

Date of Judgment: 24 July 2025

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma