Husband's Earnings Must Match His Lifestyle, Says Delhi HC in Maintenance Dispute

Delhi High Court dismisses husband's plea challenging Family Court's assessment of income, stresses duty to provide fair maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld a Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance to a wife and child, dismissing the husband's challenge to the court's income assessment. The court underscored the principle that a husband must disclose true income and fulfill his obligation to support his wife and child. The decision, delivered by Justice Anish Dayal, highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) aligns with a fair and reasonable standard of living.

Shivani Dahiya, the respondent, married Satish Kumar Dahiya in August 2001, and they have a son born in 2002. Shivani filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, alleging cruelty and financial neglect by her husband. She claimed maintenance of ₹50,000 per month along with ₹55,000 towards litigation expenses, asserting that she had been forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the husband's behavior. The husband, however, denied these allegations, stating that he was earning only ₹10,000 per month as a field worker and accusing Shivani of having deserted him.

Assessment of Husband's Income: The crux of the case rested on the accurate assessment of the husband's income. The Family Court had estimated his income at ₹60,000 per month based on discrepancies in his financial declarations. The High Court noted that despite the husband’s claim of earning ₹10,000 per month, his stated expenses far exceeded this amount, indicating a suppression of actual income. The court observed, "The Family Court was not amiss in concluding that the petitioner had not disclosed his true income, necessitating an estimation for interim maintenance."

Legal Duty to Provide Maintenance: Justice Dayal emphasized that under Section 125 CrPC, the courts must ensure that maintenance orders provide a standard of living comparable to what the wife and child would have enjoyed if the marital discord had not arisen. The ruling pointed out that the obligation to provide maintenance persists regardless of the son attaining majority, particularly if the child is still pursuing education.

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are designed to prevent destitution and provide financial relief to the wife and children. The court noted that at the interim stage, a broad estimation of income is sufficient to ensure immediate relief. "It is the duty of an able-bodied man to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and children," the court stated, dismissing the husband's plea that he was financially incapable.

Justice Anish Dayal remarked, "The Family Court’s assessment of ₹60,000 as the husband's income was a fair estimation based on the evidence, or lack thereof, presented. Maintenance cannot be denied on the basis of underreported earnings, especially when there is clear evidence of financial capacity exceeding the declared amount."

This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that husbands cannot evade their responsibility by underreporting income or making unsubstantiated claims about their financial incapacity. By upholding the Family Court's interim maintenance order, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the judiciary's role in protecting the financial rights of women and children in matrimonial disputes. This ruling is expected to influence future maintenance cases, emphasizing transparency in income declarations and the duty to provide adequate support to the family.

Date of Decision: August 20, 2024​.

Satish Kumar Dahiya v. Shivani Dahiya & Anr.