TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Reduces Child Maintenance in Equally Earning Couple Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on October 11, 2023, the Delhi High Court issued a groundbreaking judgment in a maintenance dispute under the Hindu Marriage Act. The case involved a husband and wife, both highly qualified professionals, who were seeking adjustments in child maintenance and interim maintenance.

In a key observation, the court stated, “Interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is intended to prevent financial hardship during matrimonial proceedings and ensure both parties can afford litigation expenses and live comfortably. It’s not meant to equalize incomes or provide a similar lifestyle.”

The husband had been directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- per month for the child’s maintenance, while the wife’s maintenance claim was denied. The wife, who earns Rs. 2.5 lakhs per month, sought an increase in child maintenance to Rs. 60,000/- per month and interim maintenance for herself. Meanwhile, the husband, earning USD 7134 per month (equivalent to Rs. 1,65,651/- per month with PPP conversion factor or Rs. 5,60,000/- per month with the exchange rate), sought a reduction in child maintenance to a total of Rs. 21,500/- per month, with him liable for half of that amount.

Considering the qualifications and incomes of both spouses, the court found that interim maintenance for the wife was rightly denied. The court further reduced the interim maintenance for the child from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month, emphasizing the shared responsibility for the child’s maintenance.

This judgment sets a precedent for cases involving maintenance in situations where both spouses are highly qualified and earning, clarifying that the purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent financial hardship during legal proceedings, rather than equalizing incomes or lifestyles.

The appeals were represented by Mr. Anuj Arora & Mr. Pardeep Sharma for the appellants and Mr. Somvir Singh Deshwal for the respondent.

Date of Decision: October 11, 2023

ANJU AND ANR. VS RINKU DAHIYA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/11-Oct-23-Anuj-Vs-XXX.pdf"]

Latest Legal News