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

495
0
Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

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

Download Judgment

Share: