CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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