The Delhi High Court has highlighted that in marital cases, parties frequently fail to declare their true income to the court, purportedly to escape the burden of maintenance. As a result, the Court has the authority to assess maintenance based on their status and lifestyle.
The statement was made in a case where the husband had challenged a Family Court West judgement partially approving his wife’s appeal under Section 125 CrPC and granted Rs.10,000 per month in maintenance.
The husband maintained that because he was unemployed and his wife was well-qualified and earning a good living, she was not entitled to maintenance. The High Court noted that the husband said that he was keeping a 3 BHK flat and paying rent of Rs.12,000 per month, minus around Rs.2,000 in energy expenditures.
It was also found that the husband’s monthly spending was roughly Rs.35,210 per month and that he had put money in mutual funds and was receiving regular profits from them.
The parties’ marriage was solemnised on October 25, 2015. They began living separately soon after their marriage due to various familial disagreements amongst them. The respondent wife petitioned the Family Court under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
She said that she had to go through tremendous mental anguish as a result of harassment from her spouse at the matrimonial home. In her plea, she described many incidents and mentioned that her husband, a revisionist, works as a Graphic Designer at NIIT Company in Gurugram and earns Rs.40,000 per month.
She further alleged that her husband received an additional Rs 40,000 per month in rental income from the residence. She went on to say that her husband had no liability, that his mother received a pension of Rs.25,000 per month, and that he was the only son.
The husband claimed that the respondent-wife had subjected him to mental cruelty and torture. He alleged that she had left the matrimonial home without reason or justification, that she had lodged a false complaint before the CAW cell, and that she had then stayed absent during the counselling processes.
The High Court stated that it is the husband’s sacred obligation to provide financial assistance to the wife and that there is no way out unless the Court rules that the wife is not entitled to maintenance from the husband on any legally legitimate grounds.
“The living standard of the petitioner, his conduct in suppressing relevant information from the court and the fact that he is not only qualified but is capable of earning good money shows that the learned Family Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. It is seen from the evidence of the petitioner that she was subjected to harassment on day-to-day basis, and therefore, under compelling circumstances she had to leave the company of the petitioner and therefore, there is proper justification for her to live separately.”
The court therefore, dismissed the petition of the husband and upheld the decision of the Family Court.
Case Title: Sandeep Walia v Monika Uppal