NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Maintenance Must Be Realistic: Delhi High Court Overturns Family Court’s Denial of Pendente Lite Maintenance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi has modified a previous judgment by the Family Court regarding the maintenance of a minor child and the denial of pendente lite maintenance to the appellant wife, Nidhi Sudan. The High Court, in its judgment delivered on December 4, 2023, emphasized the necessity of a ‘realistic’ approach towards maintenance, stating, “The maintenance has to be realistic, avoiding either of two extremes i.e. neither oppressive or extravagant, nor meagre to drive the applicant wife to penury or mere support.”

In the case of MAT.APP.(F.C.) 231/2023, the appellant, Nidhi Sudan, challenged the Family Court’s order, which had directed the respondent husband, Manish Kumar Khanna, to pay Rs.20,000/- per month for the child’s maintenance but denied pendente lite maintenance to her. The High Court, led by Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, overturned this decision, adding a maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/- per month for the wife.

The High Court's judgment highlighted several crucial aspects of the case. It brought attention to the appellant’s earnings and expenses, where she, being an MBA, LLB, and professionally qualified in Gems and Gemology, earns Rs.40,000/month with additional rental income. The appellant had claimed monthly expenses of Rs.1,18,633 for herself and her child, which the court recognized in its decision.

Significantly, the respondent’s non-participation in the proceedings was noted, and an adverse inference was drawn against him. The court presumed that the respondent, a practicing advocate with over 20 years of experience, earned at least Rs.1 lac/month. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed, “The obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife.”

The High Court also critiqued the delay in the disposition of the interim maintenance application, underscoring the legislative intent for providing swift support. “An endeavour should be made by the Courts for disposal of interim maintenance application filed by the applicant within 60 days of service of notice,” the judgment read.

Date of Decision: December 4, 2023

NIDHI SUDAN VS MANISH KUMAR KHANNA

Latest Legal News