Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance When Financially Secure and Dishonest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Boycott of Courts Violates Litigants’ Right to Speedy Justice: Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Proviso Cannot Defeat the Main Provision Which Allows Amendment ‘At Any Stage of Proceedings’: Karnataka High Court Knife Used To Enlarge Child’s Vagina Before Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Death Sentence In ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Case 47 BNSS | Mere Mention of Offence and Sections Is Not Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest: Allahabad High Court Quashes Arrest for Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court Information Commission Has No Power To Impose Blanket Ban On RTI Applications: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Restriction On Filing Future RTIs Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case Drug And Cosmetic Act | Sample Testing Must Be Completed Within 60 Days Under Rule 45 – Delay Vitiates Entire Prosecution: Bombay High Court 156(3) CrPC | Handwriting Expert's Report May Not Be Final – But It’s Sufficient to Initiate Investigation: Delhi High Court 217 CrPC | Alteration of Charges Is Not a Mere Formality: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Maintenance Is Not a Charity, It's an Implied Right: Chhattisgarh High Court Cancels Gift Deed for Denial of Care to Elderly Donors Minor Inconsistencies Can't Overturn Disability Claims: Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on HDFC Justice Must Not Be a Casualty of Clerical Oversight: AP High Court Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court Nomination Has Sanctity—Succession Certificate Not Mandatory When Valid Nominee Exists: Supreme Court in GPF Dispute

Delhi High Court Modifies Maintenance Order, Stresses on ‘Capacity to Earn’ in Matrimonial Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that underscores the balance in matrimonial responsibilities, the Delhi High Court today modified an order pertaining to maintenance pendente lite, emphasizing the principle of ‘capacity to earn’ in matrimonial disputes.

Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta heard the appeal MAT.APP.(F.C.) 196/2023 filed by Chetram Mali against the order dated April 24, 2022, by the Family Court, Saket. The original order required Mali to pay ₹30,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and ₹51,000/- as litigation expenses to his wife, Karishma Saini, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The High Court, after scrutinizing the financial statements and existing maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), noted discrepancies in the maintenance amounts. Initially, Mali was directed to pay ₹21,000/- per month under the PWDV Act, which was then increased to ₹30,000/- by the Family Court without substantial changes in circumstances.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, in his judgment, highlighted the importance of considering both parties’ earning capacities in maintenance cases. He observed, “The spouse having a reasonable capacity of earning but who chooses to remain unemployed and idle without any sufficient explanation or indicating sincere efforts to gain employment should not be permitted to saddle the other party with one-sided responsibility of meeting out the expenses.”

The Court noted that Mali’s gross salary was ₹1,04,276/- with an in-hand salary of ₹47,784/-. It also took into account his responsibilities towards his family and existing loan repayments. Conversely, Saini’s potential to earn, given her educational background as a graduate from Delhi University, was also considered.

In its verdict, the High Court set the maintenance pendente lite at ₹21,000/- per month, aligning it with the earlier PWDV Act maintenance amount. Additionally, the Court stipulated an annual increment of ₹1,500/- starting from January 2024 until the disposal of the petition. The litigation expenses and arrears are to be paid as per the Family Court’s order.

Date of Decision: 21st November 2023

CHETRAM MALI VS KARISHMA SAINI

Latest Legal News