Courts Should Not Adjudicate From 'Ivory Tower': Punjab & Haryana HC On Family Court's Denial Of Interim Maintenance To Wife

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that Courts are mandated to adopt a pragmatic approach by focusing on the substantive financial realities rather than being influenced by the mere formal appearance of employment or income in maintenance proceeding.

The Court modified the order of a Family Court wherein, it did not grant any maintenance to wife because she held a position of a director in his brother's company.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It is a well-established and universally acknowledged judicial principle that a Court ought not to adjudicate from an 'ivory tower' and that the judicial decisions must resonate with practical realities of the Society rather than being shackled to abstract interpretation(s) of legal doctrine(s). The Courts, indubitably, hold a dual responsibility; to uphold the rule of law as also to ensure that justice remains relevant and responsive to the dynamic conditions of the Society."

The Court highlighted that because a woman held nominal employment in the family business before marriage could not be considered that she was well-empowered to earn on her own, as she had been working prior to marriage.

"The mere fact that a wife has previously been employed or had an independent source of income in the past cannot serve as a valid ground for denying her maintenance claim from her husband," added the Court.

These observations were made while hearing the plea challenging the order of a Family Court whereby the petitioner was denied any interim maintenance and Rs.8000 was awarded to her minor son.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the sole ground on which the maintenance was denied to the petitione-wife is that she was employed as Director of one company and was earning sufficiently, is erroneous and without giving due regard to the real.

The employment was merely nominal/titular in nature and pertains to the period before the petitioner got married, he added.

Considering the submissions, the Court said, for a husband to plead that, in a situation like this, (i.e. where the wife has been removed from employment in her parental family business upon her getting married), that the wife is well-empowered to earn on her own, as she has been working before marriage, is a misplaced argument.

Perusing the material on record the Court noted that, the  wife was earlier employed in the company of her brother, but had left the same upon her getting married to respondent-husband.

"This, by no stretch of imagination, can be deemed to be a factor sufficient by itself & in absence of any further material against the wife, to be a ground against petitioner No.1 (herein-wife) for disentitling her for grant of interim maintenance by the husband," it added.

Merely Because Wife Was Previously Employed Cannot Be Ground To Deny Maintenance Claim From Husband 

The Court made it clear that the mere fact that a wife has previously been employed or had an independent source of income in the past cannot serve as a valid ground for denying her maintenance claim from her husband.

"Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 clearly provides that a wife, unable to maintain herself, is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. What is crucial is her present inability to maintain herself, not her past employment or previous financial independence," it added.

Justice Goel explained that the rationale lies in the recognition that circumstances can change; a wife who was once employed may have lost her job or may no longer be in a position to sustain herself due to factors beyond her control. Thus, the mere existence of prior employment is not dispositive of the issue of maintenance.

 Mere allegations of her having been employed or possessing earning capacity, devoid of substantive proof, cannot be accepted as a valid defence to shirk the statutory duty enshrined under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, added the judge.

In the present case, the Court pointed that the monthly income of the husband is approximately Rs.86,000 per month and "while determining the amount of interim maintenance, there must be a fair balance between the financial capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife."

In the light of the above, the Court partly modified the order and directed the husband to pay to wife a sum of Rs.15,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition till decision of the main case pending adjudication before the Family Court.

Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 351