Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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