Husband cannot escape maintenance responsibility while living lavishly

A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar delivered its ruling on July 9, while dealing with a plea filed by a man against a family court’s November 2024 order directing him to pay ₹1,00,000 to his wife and ₹2,25,000 to his minor child as monthly maintenance

The Delhi high court has held that while the husband need not beg, borrow or steal to maintain his wife and child, he cannot his responsibility while leading a lavish life.

In its 30-page ruling, the bench also held that a wife is entitled to the same standard of living as she was accustomed to during the period of her marriage. (FILE)

A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar delivered its ruling on July 9, while dealing with a plea filed by a man against a family court’s November 2024 order directing him to pay ₹1,00,000 to his wife and ₹2,25,000 to his minor child as monthly maintenance. The family court while computing the maintenance had taken note of the man’s affluent background and the fact that they were residing together in a posh area of Defence colony.

In his petition, the man had asserted that the maintenance was arbitrary and exorbitant since it was calculated on the basis of his credit entries from the bank account while ignoring the debt entries. He further submitted that the Defence Colony property belonged to his parents.

The wife opposed the petition, saying that her husband despite having a lavish life and frequent foreign travels had failed to maintain her and her son with special needs. She further submitted that her husband had not shown his actual and concealed other sources of income including rent, investment, shares, besides owning a fleet of cars.

Agreeing with the wife’s submissions, the bench said, “While it cannot be disputed that the husband cannot be expected to beg, borrow, steal to maintain the wife and child, at the same time, the husband cannot escape the liability to maintain the wife and child while himself living an extravagant lifestyle.”

The couple got married in February 2015 and a son was born in January 2017. They started living separately in November 2018 after which the wife thus an application seeking interim maintenance of ₹10,00,000 per month for herself and her son. The family court in November 2024 directed the husband to pay ₹3,25,000 to the two, against which the husband approached the high court.

In his plea, the man had also contended that the family court failed to take note of his wife being a member of two Hindu Undivided Family and was herself earning ₹70,000 per month. However, the court shot down his submission, reiterating that the wife is entitled to being maintained even if she is a coparcener of her father’s HUF or is being supported by her father.

“It is also an equally settled position of law that a claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA is not defeated merely because the applicant is educated or capable of earning. It is also not defeated because in law or fact, she is a coparcener of a HUF of her father or her father will be able to support her otherwise,” the judgment emphasised.

In its 30-page ruling, the bench, while upholding the family court’s order, also held that a wife is entitled to the same standard of living as she was accustomed to during the period of her marriage.