Delayed financial support is dignity denied: Delhi HC in maintenance case

The court asserted that even a day’s uncertainty could erode the dignity and well-being of those dependent on such support

New Delhi

The ruling came in response to a plea by a man challenging a family court’s August 2024 order directing him to pay ₹45,000 in interim monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter. (Representative photo)

Delayed financial support is dignity denied, the Delhi high court held, ruling that maintenance awarded to wife and child cannot be postponed to suit the convenience of the earning spouse. It asserted that even a day’s uncertainty could erode the dignity and well-being of those dependent on such support.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivering the verdict on Tuesday, said: “The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Maintenance is not a benevolence or charity…Even a day’s lapse compromises the welfare of the dependent wife and child. When financial support is delayed, dignity is the first casualty.”

The ruling came in response to a plea by a man challenging a family court’s August 2024 order directing him to pay ₹45,000 in interim monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter. The couple married in February 2015 and had a daughter, but the wife left the matrimonial home, citing cruelty.

Amicus curiae and advocate Payal Seth, appointed by the court to assist it, underscored the need for timely financial assistance, noting that the woman had no independent income. A single day’s delay, Seth argued, could result in severe financial hardship for the woman and her child.

The court, acknowledging the same, said: “It ensures financial stability and a sense of security for the dependent spouse and child... this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but also the dignity of those legally entitled to it.”

The man contended that the maintenance amount would render him financially incapable of paying EMIs for a loan taken to construct his ancestral house. He also argued that there was no deliberate or substantial default on his part and that he was already paying his daughter’s school fees.

However, the court rejected these submissions, stating that husbands cannot hide behind voluntarily incurred financial liabilities, such as EMIs for ancestral property, to avoid their statutory responsibility. “Such voluntary financial obligations... cannot be considered as mandatory deductions while determining maintenance,” the court said.

The high court ultimately upheld the family court’s maintenance order but made a modest adjustment, reducing the monthly amount to ₹40,000, factoring in the ₹5,500 the husband was already paying towards school fees.