Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday emphasized that a spouse with reasonable earning capacity who voluntarily chooses unemployment without a valid explanation should not impose financial burdens on the other spouse in the form of maintenance.

The division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made this observation while modifying the maintenance granted by a family court to a wife during the ongoing divorce proceedings initiated by her husband.

The bench remarked, "The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with the one-sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses."

While acknowledging that the exact calculation of maintenance need not be precise, the court emphasized that the objective is to provide relief to the spouse who is financially unable to support themselves during the divorce proceedings.

The court also highlighted the gender-neutral nature of maintenance provisions during such proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), referring to Sections 24 and 25, which address rights, liabilities, and obligations arising from the marriage.

The case before the High Court involved a husband challenging an order to pay Rs. 30,000 per month to his wife during the divorce proceedings.

The husband contended that he was initially directed to pay Rs. 21,000 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and this amount was later increased to Rs. 30,000 in the HMA proceedings.

The husband's counsel argued that, given his low income, he supported his sisters, brother, and elderly parents while repaying a loan taken for his brother's marriage.

On the contrary, the wife's counsel argued that she was working as a social worker and not receiving a salary from the hospital where she was employed.

After considering the submissions and the financial records, the court found the husband's salary, after deductions and recoveries, to be Rs. 56,492.

It noted that the Family Court had not provided reasons for the enhanced maintenance awarded to the wife. Recognizing the husband's financial responsibilities towards his family, the court reduced the interim maintenance from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 21,000.

Additionally, the court outlined an automatic yearly increment of Rs. 1,500 per month to account for inflation and rising prices.

Case Title: Chetram Mali v. Karishma Sahini