Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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