Lavish Living Cannot Excuse Neglect of Wife: Delhi High Court Dismisses Husband’s Plea Against ₹1 Lakh Monthly Maintenance

“A Wife Must Live with Equal Dignity”: In a significant judgment Delhi High Court, through Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, reinforced the sacrosanct duty of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife in line with his financial capacity. Dismissing the criminal revision petition filed by Rakesh Bhatara, the Court upheld the ₹1,00,000 monthly interim maintenance awarded to his wife, Sakshi Bhatara, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court’s strong observations on the financial responsibility of a husband, regardless of claimed illness or income fluctuations, sets a clear precedent prioritizing the dignity and well-being of women in matrimonial disputes.

The case arose when the petitioner challenged the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had raised the interim maintenance from ₹33,000 to ₹1 lakh per month. He claimed financial incapacity, mounting medical expenses due to a chronic illness (Ankylosing Spondylitis), and argued that his wife was able-bodied and capable of self-support.

Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, however, found the petitioner’s arguments devoid of credibility and stressed on the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife with dignity proportionate to his financial standing.

The Court declared, “It is the settled proposition of law that husband is not only required to maintain his wife but also to maintain her with such dignity and with such status which either she is already enjoying or is capable enough or entitled to enjoy in life. It is only then, that it could be regarded as maintenance in true sense.”

The Court’s analysis focused on the glaring disparity between the petitioner’s declared financial hardship and his admitted opulent lifestyle. From his own affidavit, the Court noted monthly expenses of ₹1.56 lakhs, including ₹20,000 on electricity, ₹31,000 on car driver and fuel, ₹10,000 on entertainment, and ₹40,000 on medical expenses. Remarking on this inconsistency, the Court observed, “It is beyond comprehension that a person who is having income of less than ₹1 lakh a month would be spending ₹1.58 lakhs on himself.”

The High Court also referred to income tax returns revealing the petitioner’s average annual income between ₹28 to ₹36 lakhs. Rejecting his plea of reduced earnings, the Court observed, “From the income affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is evident that he is maintaining a high standard of living… these figures establish that the petitioner is leading a comfortable lifestyle and has the financial capacity to bear the awarded maintenance.”

The Court gave short shrift to the claim of the petitioner’s serious medical condition being a ground to curtail maintenance obligations. “No medical bills, prescriptions, or supporting treatment records have been placed on record to substantiate such a claim,” the Court stated, dismissing them as “bald and self-serving assertions.”

Reiterating the legal position that a capable man must support his wife, Justice Sharma cited with approval the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, saying, “The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied man and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.”

Further, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the Court reiterated, “These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife.”

The Court made it clear that a woman’s status as a second wife or having children from a previous marriage does not erode her legal rights under the Domestic Violence Act. “The Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance,” held the Court.

On the issue of the petitioner’s attempt to transfer properties to avoid financial liabilities, the Court took note of “the petitioner’s conduct of alienating assets during litigation,” and upheld the Trial Court’s order restraining him from alienating immovable property.

Rejecting the husband's attempts to evade his responsibility, the Court concluded emphatically, “In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the impugned order.”

Thus, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the maintenance order of ₹1,00,000 per month in favour of Sakshi Bhatara.

Date of Decision: 15 July 2025