Mental Illness Cannot Be a Ground for Divorce and Also a Reason to Deny Maintenance: Delhi High Court Enhances Maintenance to ₹20,000 for Schizophrenic Divorced Wife

“A husband who secures divorce on the ground of a wife’s mental illness cannot thereafter assert that she is capable of earning to avoid his statutory obligations”, High Court of Delhi decided critical questions related to enhancement and interpretation of maintenance under Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a detailed verdict, allowed partial enhancement of maintenance awarded to a schizophrenic divorced woman, while dismissing a challenge to an execution order as frivolous and imposing costs for abuse of process.

The case involved a divorced wife seeking increased maintenance from her former husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, invoking a change in financial and personal circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The Court upheld the Family Court’s grant of ₹15,000/- per month maintenance but further enhanced the amount to ₹20,000/- per month effective from July 12, 2017.

“Education Does Not Equate to Employability Where Mental Illness is Established”

The Court observed that despite the petitioner being educationally qualified, her established diagnosis of schizophrenia, coupled with two decades of unemployment, rendered her incapable of earning.

“The law draws a clear distinction between being educationally qualified and actually having a regular source of income... Education, by itself, does not translate into employability, especially when accompanied by a medical condition that affects cognitive and emotional functioning of a person’s mind.”

Justice Sharma rejected the respondent’s contradictory defence that while he had obtained a divorce on the ground of her mental illness, she was now fit enough to earn for herself.

“A husband who has secured divorce by relying upon the wife’s mental condition cannot thereafter evade his statutory obligation by contending that she possesses the qualification and the capability to earn. Such a plea is clearly untenable.”

Maintenance is Not a Charity, It Is a Legal Right—Overseas Employment No Excuse for Avoidance

The Court took note of the respondent’s substantial overseas income of approximately AED 30,000 (around ₹5.7 lakhs per month at the time), and held that foreign employment does not dilute the obligation to provide dignified sustenance.

While acknowledging the higher cost of living in the UAE, the Court clarified:

“Voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse... Maintenance is to be determined on free income, not net income after discretionary deductions.”

It further held that statutory deductions alone are relevant in assessing ability to pay maintenance, reiterating that foreign currency income should not be converted blindly but assessed contextually.

Nevertheless, after adjusting for essential expenses and disallowing voluntary deductions, the Court concluded that the respondent had adequate surplus to pay ₹20,000 per month.

No Retrospective Enhancement from Dismissed Petition — Date of Fresh Application Governs

Another major issue addressed was the date from which the enhanced maintenance should be payable. The petitioner sought to backdate the enhancement to 2007 when her first Section 127 petition was filed. However, that application was dismissed on technical grounds, as it was filed by her mother.

Justice Sharma clarified:

“Once an application stands dismissed, even on technical grounds, the subsequent proceedings cannot be treated as a continuation thereof... Retrospective enhancement cannot be granted on the basis of a proceeding which no longer exists in the eyes of law.”

The Court therefore upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant enhanced maintenance only from January 13, 2011—the date of the valid fresh application.

Frivolous Interpretation of Maintenance Order to Reopen Settled Issues Deprecated

In CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021, the petitioner attempted to reinterpret the Family Court’s July 2017 order to claim that the enhancement was by ₹9,000 and not to ₹9,000 per month. This would have entitled her to ₹15,000/month for a period when only ₹9,000/month was directed. The Family Court, relying on the clear wording of its earlier order and a report from the Nazir, concluded that the maintenance due was fully paid—and even overpaid by ₹2,200.

The High Court upheld this finding and reprimanded the petitioner for shifting her stand:

“Such contention is not only contrary to the plain reading of the operative portion... but also inconsistent with the petitioner’s own earlier pleadings before this Court... This attempt to reinterpret a clear judicial order... can only be viewed as an effort to reopen settled issues.”

The revision was dismissed with ₹10,000/- costs payable to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, marking a stern warning against frivolous litigation.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling stands as a firm reaffirmation of the rights of vulnerable spouses—particularly those suffering from mental illness—within maintenance jurisprudence. It underscores that statutory duties of maintenance cannot be dodged through technicalities or lifestyle excuses. A husband who has successfully obtained a divorce on the ground of his wife’s mental illness cannot later allege that she is capable of self-sustenance to escape his financial responsibility. The judgment also reinforces clarity in interpreting maintenance orders and safeguards the judicial process against inconsistent and vexatious challenges.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2026