Husband bound to give spousal maintenance even if wife gets help from kin: HC
The order was passed in a plea by a woman against a city court’s direction to reduce her interim maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹12,000 per month
The Delhi high court has held that a husband is legally bound to provide maintenance to his wife, even if she receives financial support from her family members in times of distress.
The order was passed by a bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday, while hearing a plea filed by a woman against a city court’s direction to reduce her interim maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹12,000 per month on the grounds that she was in a position to sustain herself since she was receiving financial assistance from her father and brother.
The woman challenged the order, arguing that the financial assistance extended by her family members could not be equated with her own income or earning capacity, and such voluntary support did not absolve her husband of his legal obligation to maintain her. The man said that the financial support was a relevant factor to be considered while assessing his wife’s overall income and immediate means of sustenance.
“Temporary or voluntary assistance by family members cannot substitute the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, especially when she has no independent source of income,” justice Sharma said in the verdict released on May 14.
In her 11-page ruling, justice Sharma reasoned that assistance offered by a wife’s family members does not absolve the husband of his statutory responsibility, and accepting the trial court’s reasoning would set a “dangerous precedent.” Such reasoning, the judge added, would, on one hand, penalise the woman for receiving compassionate support and, on the other, confer an unfair advantage upon the defaulting husband.
“Accepting such reasoning would also imply that if a woman’s parents choose to help their daughter financially during a time when her husband has failed to provide maintenance, the legal duty to support her would effectively shift from the husband to her parental family. This, however, runs contrary to the well-established principles of law governing the grant of maintenance, which place the primary responsibility for spousal support squarely on the shoulders of the husband,” the judge said.
Further, the court held, “If this line of reasoning were to be accepted, it would set a dangerous precedent—wherein even financial assistance provided by a woman’s friends or extended relatives in times of distress could be construed as her income.” Such an interpretation, she said, would lead to an “unjust reduction in the husband’s legal obligations.” Also, it would deter the woman’s family and well-wishers from stepping in to support her for fear that their help might weaken her legal claim for maintenance, the judge added.
The woman had approached the high court against the city court’s December 8, 2023, order. The couple got married in November 2020, but the husband left her in March 2022. The woman had filed an application seeking interim maintenance, alleging that her mother-in-law had retained all her jewellery articles and she was continuously subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws on account of persistent dowry demands.
Consequently, the court set aside the order and directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 as maintenance, noting that the assistance was provided out of compassion, necessity, and not as a permanent or legal source of sustenance. The wife, the court said, was unable to maintain herself and did not have any source of income of her own.
“In this court’s opinion, the reasons provided by the learned family court are entirely inconsistent with the well-settled principles of law and judicial guidelines governing the grant of maintenance to an estranged wife. While it is true that, in law, the court is required to consider whether the wife has any independent source of income or earnings while determining the quantum of maintenance to be awarded, such consideration becomes relevant only when the wife is indeed earning or has income regularly available to her or at her disposal,” the court reasoned.
