Husband’s Duty to Maintain Wife and Children is Absolute—Financial Excuses Won’t Work: Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle that an able-bodied husband cannot shirk his legal and moral responsibility to provide maintenance for his wife and children. The Court, while modifying the maintenance amount, upheld the Family Court’s order, reiterating that the husband’s obligation to provide financial support is paramount.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivering the judgment, made it clear: "The husband is under a moral and social obligation to provide suitable maintenance to his wife and children. He cannot take subterfuges to deprive them of their right to live with dignity."
The case arose from a maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by Maya (wife) and her two children against Subhash Chand (husband) before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The couple had been married since April 13, 2000, but marital discord led to separation in 2011, following allegations of domestic abuse and dowry demands.
Maya claimed that Subhash Chand earned over ₹2 lakh per month from his business, while she had no independent source of income. She sought ₹20,000 per month for herself and ₹10,000 each for the children.
The Family Court, in its order dated April 25, 2024, assessed the husband's income at ₹20,000 per month, based on judicial notice of minimum wages. It directed him to pay ₹4,000 per month each to his wife and two children. Subhash Chand challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the maintenance amount was excessive and that his actual income was only ₹7,800 per month.
Delhi High Court: No Escape for an Able-Bodied Husband
The Delhi High Court rejected the husband’s plea that he had no means to pay maintenance, holding that an able-bodied man must be presumed capable of earning sufficiently to support his family.
Referring to Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353, the Court reiterated: "The concept of sustenance does not mean leading the life of an animal or being thrown away from grace. A wife is entitled in law to lead a life in the same manner as she would have in her matrimonial home. The husband cannot take refuge in financial excuses to deny her this right."
The judgment also cited Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705, where the Supreme Court held: "A husband cannot be permitted to plead financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning. Maintenance is the only legal and moral balm the law can impose upon him to ensure his wife and children are not left destitute."
The Court further relied on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, emphasizing: "The onus is on the husband to establish that he is genuinely unable to provide maintenance. If he fails to do so, an adverse inference can be drawn."
Modification of Maintenance Amount Based on Minimum Wages
While upholding the principle of maintenance, the Delhi High Court modified the Family Court’s assessment of the husband's income. It noted that the Family Court had estimated the husband's earnings at ₹20,000 per month based on the minimum wages for a skilled worker, despite the fact that Subhash Chand was only a 10th-pass individual.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed: "The rate of minimum wages in Delhi is approximately ₹18,000 per month for an unskilled worker, ₹19,000 for a semi-skilled worker, and ₹20,000 for a skilled worker. Since the petitioner has only studied till class 10th and possesses no special skills, his income should be reasonably assessed at ₹18,000 per month."
Accordingly, the Court reduced the maintenance amount from ₹4,000 to ₹3,600 per month for each of the wife and children, adjusting it to reflect a more realistic assessment of income.
Conclusion: No Escape from Maintenance Obligations
With this ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his duty to provide for his wife and children, dismissing financial excuses that lack evidence. The judgment also clarifies that judicially determined maintenance must be grounded in economic reality, ensuring fairness to both parties.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, concluding the judgment, made it clear: "An able-bodied husband cannot shy away from his responsibilities towards his wife and minor children. The petitioner’s maintenance obligation remains intact, with a reasonable modification to align with economic realities."
This ruling serves as a strong precedent ensuring that maintenance awards remain fair, consistent, and enforceable, while preventing husbands from using financial hardships as an excuse to escape legal obligations.
 

Date of Decision: 13 February 2025