Denial Of Maintenance To Estranged Wife & Child Is Worst Offence From Humanitarian Perspective: Delhi High Court Imposes 20K Cost On Husband

"To deny maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence, even from a humanitarian perspective," the Delhi High Court has observed on Monday.

Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dismissing with a cost of Rs. 20,000 a petition filed by a husband challenging Trial Court order directing him to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as a consolidated amount towards interim maintenance to the wife and child till the disposal of the matrimonial matter.

"The malafide intentions of an estranged husband is to depress his income as much as possible, for sadistic pleasure, of seeing the agony of someone, who has no choice, but to be dependent on him, may be dictated by egoistic propensity to also possibly teach his wife a lesson for not falling in line with whatever be his dictates. Matrimonial relationships can come to an end for a variety of reasons including ego clashes. It is time that there is a change in the attitude when litigation is filed by one spouse against the other," the Court observed.

It added "To introduce bitterness in the litigation serves nobody's purpose. The creation of Family Courts, the entire set up of Counseling Centers, and the availability of mediation whether before litigation or during litigation, are all intended for a more amiable and less torturous resolution of matrimonial and family problems. The legal fraternity must encourage quick resolution by these methods. Their role would be of immeasurable value in rescuing lives from the brink of ruination and annihilation."

The Court also expressed concern that the husbands force their wives to file execution petitions to delay payments, even after a court of law has determined her entitlement, even if as an interim measure.

The High Court vide order dated 20th April, 2022 had directed the husband to deposit the difference in the amount that was fixed by the Trial Court and the sum that he was willing to pay, Rs.4,000 which he had claimed the he had paid up to February, 2022 to the wife in the form of an FDR.

It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner husband that a sum of Rs.1,00,000 had been deposited with the Court Registry in compliance of this order towards the difference.

It was further the contention of the petitioner that he was willing to pay Rs.4,000 per month to the wife and child, in keeping with his monthly earning of Rs.28,000 as disclosed by him before the Family Court in his affidavit of income and expenditure.

It was also submitted that the petitioner was even willing to keep the wife and child and was willing to rent out a premises for their separate residence.

The Court noted that though the petitioner husband claimed that the amount had been paid upto February, 2022, the fact was disputed by wife and child who submitted that payments were made only upto September, 2021 i.e., for 7 months.

"An Execution Petition filed by the respondents is also stated to be pending. The non-compliance of directions of a consent order speaks of the "fair conduct" of the petitioner. But he wants this Court to accept a similar offer towards maintenance of the respondents," the Court noted.

The Court also took note of the statement recorded on oath by the Family Court stating that the husband owned a Hyundai EON car and a smartphone of Samsung.

"Yet, he wishes to peg the maintenance of the respondent to Rs.4,000/- (before this Court Rs.5,000/-) i.e., less than half of the sum he allegedly spends on his old parents. A growing child and a mother who is taking care of all the needs of such a growing child is to somehow manage with Rs.4,000/-, whereas, the petitioner and his parents can have a greatly enhanced level of comfort by spending Rs.25,000/- to Rs.28,000/- on themselves," the Court said.

It added "This attitude is shameful to say the least. It behoves no husband or a father to deny a fair standard of living for a wife who is a homemaker and their child of tender age. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent No.1 is earning Rs.30,000/- by way of tuitions. It is no doubt a wild allegation, but it is curious, as to why the petitioner, is unwilling to make such additional efforts himself, to earn some more income, to meet the financial obligations of a husband and a father."

With the said observations, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.20,000 to be paid to the wife before the Family Court on the next date of hearing fixed before it.

Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR v. SMT BHAWANA & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 672

Click Here To Read Order