S.125 CrPC | Parties Often Don't Disclose Their Actual Income, Maintenance May Be Granted Considering Their Status & Lifestyle: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, it is seen that parties often don't disclose their actual income to the court, purportedly to avoid the liability of maintenance. Thus, it is open for the Court to determine maintenance based on their status and lifestyle.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,

"Even experience shows that actual income is normally not disclosed by the parties. Under such circumstances, it is always safe to come to a realistic conclusion considering the status of the parties and their lifestyle etc." 

The observation was made wherein the husband had challenged an order of the Family Court West, partly allowing his wife's application under Section 125 CrPC and granting Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance.

The husband had argued that he was jobless, whereas his wife was well-qualified and was earning a handsome amount, hence she was not entitled for any maintenance.

The High Court noted that the husband had stated that he was maintaining a 3 BHK flat and paying rent of Rs.12,000 per month excluding electricity charges of about Rs.2,000.

It also noted that husband's monthly expenditure was Rs.35,210 approximately per month and that he had invested money in mutual fund and getting regular dividends therefrom.

"It is thus seen that the initial burden placed upon the respondent to show the means of her husband is sufficiently discharged. The argument of the petitioner to accept that the petitioner is earning equal to minimum wages fixed by the Delhi Government is untenable. 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," the Court said.

The Court was also of the view that bald submission that the petitioner husband did not have any source of income can be no ground to exonerate him from the liability of maintaining his wife under the facts of the present case.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.10.2015. Soon after the marriage, on account of some family disputes between them, they started living separately. The respondent wife filed an application under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court.

She stated that on account of harassment being caused by her husband at the matrimonial house, she had to undergo intense mental agony. She narrated various instances in her application and she further stated that her husband i.e. revisionist is doing a job of a Graphic Designer in NIIT Company at Gurugram and is earning Rs.40,000 per month.

She also stated that her husband had rental income from the house and was getting an additional sum of Rs.40,000 per month. She further stated that there was no liability on her husband and the mother of her husband was also getting pension of Rs.25,000 per month and he was the only son.

Accordingly, she prayed for a grant of a sum of Rs.40,000 per month towards maintenance and Rs.25,000 towards litigation expenses.

The husband stated that the respondent-wife herself was guilty of causing mental cruelty and torture to him. He stated that the she had left the matrimonial house without any reason and justification and that she also made a false complaint before CAW cell and thereafter she herself remained absent during the counseling proceedings being conducted.

The High Court observed that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to render financial support to wife and that there is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.

"So far as an argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with respect to voluntarily leaving the company of the petitioner by the respondent is concerned, 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," it added.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: SANDEEP WALIA v. MONIKA UPPAL

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Del) 677

Click Here To Read Order