Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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