Capability to Earn Is Not Proof of Actual Earnings – Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance for Wife and Child

“Loans for Personal Comfort Can’t Override Legal Duty to Support Spouse and Child” – Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s appeal challenging an order of interim maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar upheld the Family Court’s direction granting ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹15,000 per month to the minor daughter, holding that “mere qualifications or prior income are not grounds to deny maintenance when actual earnings remain unproven.”

The Court also clarified that the husband’s alleged liabilities, personal loans, and obligation to maintain his mother cannot dilute the statutory responsibility to support his wife and child.

The parties were married on 11 December 2019 and had a daughter from the wedlock. Due to marital discord, they began living separately from 10 March 2021, and the husband filed a divorce petition under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging adultery and cruelty by the wife.

Pending the divorce proceedings, the wife filed an application under Section 24 HMA, seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. On 7 December 2024, the Family Court, Dwarka, allowed the application and granted interim maintenance, which the husband appealed.

“Capability to Earn Is Not Actual Earning – Wife’s Qualifications Do Not Disqualify Her from Maintenance”

The husband contended that the wife was a qualified B.Tech and MBA graduate, had previously worked as a finance executive and insurance planner, and concealed her current income and bank accounts. He also alleged that she was presently employed at ACS Academy, a claim he failed to prove before the Family Court.

The High Court observed: “Capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things... A wife may leave her job due to family circumstances or to care for the child, and with the passage of time, she may not be able to secure suitable employment.” [Para 9]

It noted that no cogent material had been placed before the Family Court to prove the wife’s current employment. As such, the wife’s earlier qualifications or income did not disentitle her to maintenance, particularly when she had custody of the minor child and limited resources. [Paras 8–10]

“₹25,000 to ₹30,000 as Potential Income Is Hypothetical – But Even Then, Maintenance Justified”

The Family Court had assessed the wife’s potential income based on her qualifications but still found that, given the husband’s actual monthly income of ₹1.74 lakhs, awarding ₹10,000 and ₹15,000 respectively for the wife and child was “just, apt, appropriate, and necessary” in light of:

• Cost of living

• Social status

• Needs of a growing child

• The disparity in earnings

The High Court agreed with this reasoning: “The awarded sum cannot be considered excessive... it allows the wife to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with that of the husband.” [Para 10]

“Duty Toward Parents Doesn’t Dilute Legal Obligation Toward Spouse and Child” – Dependency Claims Rejected

The husband argued that he was obligated to pay ₹35,000 per month to his mother as directed by the Family Court in Ahmedabad and that this burden should offset his liability to pay maintenance.

The High Court rejected this, noting: “If the mother of the appellant is receiving ₹35,000 from her husband and ₹15,000 from her son, it is misconceived to reduce the wife and child’s maintenance on this ground.” [Para 11]

The Court further clarified that the father was a pensioner receiving ₹35,000 monthly, and the husband’s sister was a salaried teacher. Thus: “The mother is more appropriately considered a dependent of the father, not the appellant himself.” [Para 12]

“Personal Loans and Investments Don’t Justify Avoidance of Maintenance”

Rejecting the argument that personal liabilities, house loans or society loans should reduce the maintenance burden, the Court held:

“No relaxation for personal or investment-related loans can be granted in matters of maintenance. Such loans are for the benefit of the borrower and not grounds to curtail statutory duties.” [Para 13]

Moreover, it noted that the Family Court had already considered these liabilities in arriving at the maintenance amount, which was modest compared to the husband’s earnings.

Pending Section 340 CrPC Application Not a Ground to Withhold Maintenance

The appellant had filed a Section 340 CrPC application, alleging perjury and concealment of income by the wife, as well as an application for interrogatories. The High Court categorically held:

“The disposal of applications under Section 340 CrPC and interrogatories lies within the domain of the Family Court and is not subject matter of the present appeal.” [Para 14]

Affirming the interim maintenance order, the Delhi High Court held: “We find no infirmity in the impugned order... The awarded maintenance is neither excessive nor unreasonable and is supported by the facts and the law.” [Para 14]

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit, with the High Court reiterating that a spouse’s legal obligation to provide support cannot be avoided on speculative income claims, third-party liabilities, or personal financial priorities.

Date of Decision: 1 July 2025