Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News