Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant-husband assailing the order dated 19-04-2025 passed by the Family Court, allowing an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 split as ₹8,000 for the respondent-wife and ₹7,000 for their minor son. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ., held that the findings of the Family Court are based on cogent material on record, including bank statements, tax returns and income affidavits submitted by both parties, and are in accordance with the binding guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27-02-2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A male child was born to the couple on 11-03-2015, who remains in the care and custody of the wife. Due to marital discord, the parties started living separately from 16-03-2020. Subsequently, the appellant filed a divorce petition under Sections 12(1)(c), 13(1)(ia), and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In response, the respondent-wife moved an application under Section 24 seeking interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month.
The Family Court, after considering the income affidavits and supporting documents such as bank statements and income tax returns, assessed the appellant’s monthly income at ₹47,128. This income comprised ₹40,128 from his job as a Data Entry Operator with EDCIL (India) Ltd. and ₹7,000 rental income from a jointly owned property. The Court accordingly fixed the monthly maintenance payable at ₹15,000.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the Family Court’s determination was based on conjecture and did not consider the appellant’s existing financial obligations. Specifically, he pointed out the monthly EMIs of ₹15,092 for a home loan taken in joint ownership of the parties, along with EMIs of ₹4,108 and ₹7,407 for two other loans. The appellant also claimed to bear expenses for a Mediclaim policy that covered both the respondent and their child. Additionally, he argued that the respondent-wife was qualified to earn and that his contractual employment limited his financial means.
The Court noted that while computing income for maintenance purposes, only statutory deductions like income tax and compulsory provident fund contributions are permissible. Other expenses, such as EMIs, loan repayments, Mediclaim premiums, or personal financial choices cannot override the statutory obligation to provide maintenance. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, emphasizing that voluntary financial commitments do not reduce the “free income” considered for maintenance assessment.
The Court also reinforced that maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA is not denied merely because the spouse is educated or capable of earning. The theoretical earning capacity cannot be conflated with actual income, and the physical and emotional burden borne by the wife who is managing her own medical condition while raising a minor was a valid factor in assessing her inability to be gainfully employed.
Further, the Court noted that the maintenance fixed by the Family Court was well within reasonable bounds considering the needs of both the wife and child and the appellant’s income. The argument that the respondent is already benefiting from Mediclaim neither renders the maintenance amount excessive, nor did the appellant’s status as a contractual employee absolve him from his statutory responsibility.
Thus, the Court found no illegality, perversity, or procedural irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit.
[A v. B, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4088, decided on 26-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Mr Suman Kumar, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Mr. Shubhanshu Singh and Ms. Nisha, Advocates for appellants
None for respondents
