Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High Court

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