Mere existence of woman’s savings not a ground to deny maintenance: HC

A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanthan Shankar, in its ruling on December 23, said that in the ordinary course of human conduct, a spouse who takes shelter at her parental home after matrimonial discord is likely to share financial interdependencies with parents and siblings.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman’s one-time transfer of funds to her family after separation, or the mere existence of savings in her bank account, cannot be used by the husband as a ground to deny maintenance to his wife.

The court passed the order while dismissing a man’s petition against the family court’s March 2021 order (Representative photo)

A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanthan Shankar, in its ruling on December 23, said that in the ordinary course of human conduct, a spouse who takes shelter at her parental home after matrimonial discord is likely to share financial interdependencies with parents and siblings.

In the absence of any concrete proof of income, salary or business activity, the court said, such bank transactions are more reasonably attributable to routine family arrangements or use of past savings, rather than to any undisclosed source of professional income.

“The mere existence of some savings or a one-time financial transaction to her brother does not imply that the respondent-wife has a steady, independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and the child in the same status as that of the husband. A solitary transaction from 2018 cannot be the basis for proving sufficient income or denying maintenance,” the bench said.

The court passed the order while dismissing a man’s petition against the family court’s March 2021 order directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to his wife and daughter.

In this case, the couple married in January 2001 and had a daughter. Owing to differences and growing acrimony, they began living separately in 2015. The husband subsequently filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty. During the pendency of the proceedings, the family court directed him to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,000 each to his wife and daughter, an order that he later challenged before the high court.

In his plea, the man contended that the family court erred in passing the interim maintenance order by treating his wife’s income affidavit as conclusive. He pointed out that she had transferred ₹82,000 to her brother in 2018, which, according to him, indicated that she had sufficient income. Her independent income over the previous three years exceeded the ₹15,000 per month he had earlier been paying as maintenance, he said.

He further argued that directing him to pay the amount without granting any visitation or supervisory rights was inequitable. While acknowledging his obligation to support his child, he claimed he had no oversight over whether the funds were being utilised for her welfare and thus requested opening a joint bank account for supervising the same.

In its 10-page order, the court, while rejecting the request, said that the appeal was against the payment of interim maintenance, concerned with the quantum of maintenance awarded and not the dynamics of guardianship or custody.