The Delhi High Court, observing that the law does not mandate that a working mother be forced to exhaust herself “physically, emotionally, and financially” while the father takes refuge behind selective or misleading disclosures regarding his income, modified the interim maintenance payable by the husband from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month, who claimed to be earning Rs 9,000 monthly.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing the husband’s plea challenging a 2023 trial court order directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month, calculated at Rs 10,000 per month for each of the three minor children, to be deposited directly into the wife’s bank account, as she has custody of all three children.
Justice Sharma cautioned against equating the mere employment of the primary caregiver with financial sufficiency. (Image is enhanced using AI)
“A court of law cannot burden, nor does the law mandate, that the working mother should be forced to exhaust herself physically, emotionally, and financially, and allow the father to take refuge behind selective, misleading disclosures about his income and technical pleas”, the court said.
The high court noted that the wife has neither sought any maintenance for herself nor claimed any amount towards rental expenses, despite residing at her parental home along with the minor children and was concerned solely with securing maintenance for her children.
Emphasising that the obligation to maintain minor children is not only a “statutory duty” but also a “legal, moral, and social responsibility” of both parents, the court observed, “Maintenance of children is not confined to bare subsistence; it encompasses their overall upbringing, education, health, and standard of living, consistent with the means and status of the parents”.
In its December 27 order, the court modified the interim maintenance payable by the husband towards the three minor children from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month, while highlighting that the primary concern in the maintenance case should always be the “welfare” of the children and the “dignity” of a working woman and should not be compromised based on prima facie “artificial arrangements” created by the father of the minor children and vice versa, depending on the facts of the case.
Taking note of the social reality that a woman’s earning or employment does not absolve her of the financial, emotional, social, and other burdens connected with child-rearing, the court said that every case of maintenance decided also adjudicates and signifies that parenthood is a matter of “responsibility and not of the convenience of a party”.
“Financial disclosures, therefore, must be adjudicated based on the material on record and assessed in the background of social realities”, the order read.
Responding to the husband’s claim that the wife was acting out of a “sense of entitlement”, Justice Sharma observed that her conduct does not reflect “entitlement”, but a sense of responsibility towards the children born from the wedlock and an effort to make the other parent partner realise his responsibility towards the children.
The court cautioned against equating the mere employment of the primary caregiver with financial sufficiency and noted that the wife, a working woman, was compelled to shoulder a dual burden, i.e., of fulfilling her professional obligations alongside her responsibility of taking care of three minor children single-handedly.
The court also pointed out that maintenance cases cannot be decided in “isolation”, divorced from social realities and must be guided by the well-settled jurisprudence governing the grant of maintenance.
Appearing for the husband, advocate Amit Gupta argued that his client is financially incapable of paying the interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 monthly, as his monthly income is merely Rs 9,000, which he earns while working as a homoeopathic pharmacist.
Gupta also pointed out that his client’s wife had left the matrimonial home without “sufficient cause” and that she was working at a university and was earning approximately Rs 45,000/- per month.
On the contrary, the wife’s representative, advocate Shaini Bhardwaj, argued that both parents have a joint legal, moral, and social obligation to maintain their children, and the mere fact that his client is earning does not absolve the husband of his responsibility to contribute towards their maintenance.
It was also submitted that the wife, who is earning about R 35,000 per month, is not only maintaining herself but is also bearing the entire responsibility of raising and maintaining three minor children, including expenses towards school fees, tuition, medical care, and other day-to-day necessities.
Bhardwaj also claimed that the husband, who is highly qualified, holding an MBA degree and a diploma in Homoeopathy, is a credit card holder, and has incurred various expenditures through his credit card, which indicates multiple sources of income and a standard of living inconsistent with his claimed income.
The couple, who got married in 2014, has three minor children and decided to part their ways in 2022 after the wife being allegedly harassed for dowry demands and several instances of physical, emotional, and economic abuse by the husband and his family members.
Subsequently, the wife approached the session court and filed a case against the husband seeking compensation for her injuries caused by his acts of domestic violence and interim relief for her minor children.
The trial court directed the husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 to the wife.