Read Time: 05 minutes
Court noted that, despite the husband's claim of earning only Rs 50,000 monthly and supporting family members, it was admitted that his father was a retired government officer, and his brother, identified as an upper-middle-class doctor on Facebook
The Allahabad High Court recently enhanced the interim maintenance payable to a woman in a matrimonial dispute, observing that the previously awarded sum was grossly insufficient to meet her basic needs.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra was dealing with a revision petition filed by a woman seeking an increase in the maintenance amount granted by the family court.
The woman had challenged the family court’s 2016 order, which awarded her an interim maintenance of Rs 2,500 per month, starting from the date of the order. Arguing that the amount was inadequate for her sustenance, she sought its enhancement to reflect her estranged husband’s financial status. The High Court agreed with her contention, noting that the awarded amount failed to meet even the basic necessities of life.
"It is almost impossible for a women who belongs to a middle class family, to have even a square meal from the paltry amount of Rs.2500/-," said the bench.
Court also criticized the husband for his evasive conduct, including inconsistent statements about his income. While he claimed financial difficulties and joblessness, evidence presented by the wife, including income tax returns and lifestyle indicators, suggested otherwise.
Court observed that the husband’s previous earnings as an engineer at Sahara India and his reported monthly expenditures indicated a much higher financial capacity than claimed.
In its order, the High Court emphasized that a husband’s ability to pay maintenance must be presumed unless proven otherwise. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court underscored the principle that maintenance is aimed at ensuring social justice and dignity for the wife. It reiterated that an able-bodied husband is expected to provide adequate financial support to his spouse.
The court also referred to Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which reiterated that maintenance should be calculated from the date of the application and must consider the financial capacity and obligations of the parties.
The judgment also highlighted the husband’s attempts to delay compliance with prior court orders. Despite an earlier direction to increase interim maintenance to Rs 5,000 per month, the husband continued to pay the original amount.
After examining the evidence, the High Court enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs 10,000 per month, effective December 2024. Additionally, it directed the respondent to clear arrears calculated at Rs 5,000 per month for the period from September 2014 to November 2024, payable in five equal monthly installments starting January 2025. Failure to comply with the order would invite coercive action, court directed.
Case Title: Shilpy Sharma vs Rahul Sharma
Please Login or Register
