A family court in New Delhi has issued a significant ruling, directing a man to pay his wife a substantial sum of Rs 5 lakh every month as interim maintenance. The court firmly stated that the concept of 'sustenance' for a separated wife extends far beyond basic survival and must encompass a life of dignity consistent with her social standing during marriage.
Court Rejects Husband's Plea, Defines 'Dignified Existence'
Family court judge Devender Kumar Garg delivered the order while deciding on an application filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The judge made powerful observations, noting that "sustenance does not mean leading the life of an animal or being reduced to an unperson." The court emphasized that maintenance laws are designed to secure a woman's "dignified existence" post-separation, aligning with the lifestyle she was accustomed to while living with her husband.
The husband, who claimed to reside in Dubai, opposed the wife's plea for Rs 8 lakh per month. His counsel argued that the application was not legally maintainable. He contended that the wife was well-educated, professionally qualified, and capable of earning her own living. It was also alleged that she had concealed details of her education and income, that the marriage lasted only 13 months, and that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily without sufficient cause.
Court Draws Adverse Inference, Undertakes 'Guesswork' on Income
The court, however, found the husband's financial disclosures lacking. While the man claimed a monthly income of AED 40,000 in his affidavit, he failed to submit his bank statements and VAT returns despite repeated court directions. This failure led the court to draw an adverse inference against him. Judge Garg remarked that the court was compelled to undertake "guesswork" in assessing his true income due to the absence of crucial financial documents.
The husband's argument that his residence in Dubai—where the cost of living is high—should exempt him from paying maintenance was also firmly rejected. The court held that an "able-bodied husband" cannot evade his statutory obligation to maintain his wife or allow her to sink into financial distress, regardless of his location.
Wife's Counsel Highlights Distinction Between Capability and Employment
Representing the wife, her counsel successfully argued that being capable of employment and being actually employed are "distinct concepts." It was submitted that although she was employed before marriage, she was currently unable to maintain herself. After leaving the matrimonial home due to alleged cruelty, she was dependent on her family for daily expenses.
The counsel stressed the principle of dignified living, arguing that the husband, a man of substantial means, was legally bound to ensure his wife maintained the same standard of living she enjoyed before their separation. The court noted the husband had no other dependants, further strengthening the wife's claim.
After considering all material on record, the husband's earning capacity, lifestyle, and circumstances, the court determined that Rs 5 lakh per month was a reasonable and justified amount for interim maintenance. The ruling serves as a strong judicial reinforcement of a woman's right to financial dignity and equitable support following marital separation.
