Wife Cannot Be Forced To Work Merely Because She Holds A Graduation Degree: Delhi HC On Lawyer Husband’s Claim For Reduction In Interim Maintenance

Accordingly, a bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna while refusing to interfere with the impugned order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, observed, “...the sole ground on which the husband has sought reduction of maintenance is that the respondent/wife has a degree of B.Sc. There is no denial that the wife is a graduate having a degree, but she has never been gainfully employed. No inference can be drawn that merely because the wife is holding a degree of graduation, she must be compelled to work. It can also not be presumed that she is intentionally not working solely with an intent to claim interim maintenance from the husband”.

However, while refusing to enhance the amount further said, “The wife has neither been able to show that the estimation of the income of the husband is incorrect or that he has a much higher monthly income; thus, we do not find any reason to question this assessment of monthly income of the husband, made in the impugned Order. The learned Principal Judge has considered reasonably the expenditure of the wife and the son and has directed payment of interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month. There is no ground made out by the wife for enhancement of the maintenance”.

Advocate Madhu Bhushan appeared for the husband and Advocate Pallavi Garg appeared for the wife.

In the pertinent matter, the husband was a practicing advocate at the Supreme Court while the wife was a homemaker where after issues the husband filed a divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in 2013. While the wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking pendente lite maintenance asserting that the husband had been depositing Rs.10,000/- per month in her bank account with State Bank of India since September, 2013, but the said amount is too meagre for her to meet her expenses.

As per the wife’s claims, the husband had a lucrative practice aside from income from other sources and had several credit and debit cards, bank accounts supporting a luxurious lifestyle. Therefore, she challenged an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court where the Court while considering her application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act directed the husband to pay pendente-lite maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month i.e. Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to their minor son instead of Rs.10,000 which the husband had been paying since 2013. The Court further directed that the maintenance shall be payable with effect from 26.11.2013 and in case of any default or delay in the payment of maintenance shall invite penal costs or compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per day.

Aggrieved by the said order, the wife filed an appeal seeking further enhancement of interim maintenance to Rs.1,25,000/- per month while the husband filed a cross appeal challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day on the interim maintenance and Rs.550/- per day on litigation cost vide Order dated December 18, 2017 while granting interim maintenance to the respondent/wife. Further sought a reduction of interim maintenance granted to the respondent from Rs.25,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month

However, the High Court was of the opinion that the interim maintenance has been granted reasonably by taking the circumstances of both the parties. Therefore, the court did not find any ground to interfere in the findings of the Principal Judge, Family Court or grant reduction of interim maintenance.

“We find that the penalty imposed for delay in payment of interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife has been fixed at Rs.1,000/- per day which comes to Rs.30,000/- per month i.e. more than the interim maintenance which has been allowed to the respondent. It is not justiciable that the penalty surpasses the substantial relief granted by way of pendente lite maintenance. For the same reason, the imposition of penalty of Rs.550/- per day for the day for the delay in payment of litigation cost of Rs.33,000/- is not justiciable”, the bench further observed in the judgment.

Cause Title: Arvind Singh v. Rajni And Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7752-DB]