The Delhi High Court recently made certain critical observations regarding the need to ensure timely payments of maintenance amounts by a man to his wife and children, linking it to the dignity of such dependents.
The Court was deciding a petition filed by an earning husband who challenged a family court order directing him to pay ₹45,000 to his wife and child.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that the timely disbursal of maintenance is integral to the dignity of the dependents.
“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,” the Court observed.
The Court emphasised the need to make maintenance payments in a timely manner, stating that when maintenance is delayed, dignity is the first casualty.
“Even a day's uncertainty over basic expenses causes distress and hardship…When financial support is delayed, dignity is the first casualty. The respondent (wife) should not be left to suffer in silence, questioning how her immediate needs will be met while the petitioner (husband) enjoys financial stability,” the Court stated.
The legislative intent of maintenance provisions is to safeguard the dignity and security, prevent fear or helplessness of the dependents, and even a day’s delay would compromise their welfare, the Court added.
“Maintenance is not merely a monetary obligation but a legal and moral duty designed to preserve the dignity and security of the dependent spouse and child. It is not a benevolence or charity to be delayed at the convenience of the earning spouse,” the Court stated.
Justice Sharma also reiterated the settled position of law that only mandatory deductions are considered when computing maintenance. An EMI taken for a personal purpose cannot absolve the husband from paying maintenance, the Court said.
“It is well settled that such voluntary financial obligations, especially when incurred for ancestral property that does not exclusively belong to the petitioner, cannot be considered as mandatory deductions while determining maintenance. The statutory right of the wife and child to receive maintenance cannot be defeated on account of EMIs that the petitioner is paying towards any property,” the Court stated.
It further rejected the husband's contention that there was no substantial default on his part, as only one month's maintenance was outstanding.
"The impact of such delay on the respondent cannot be trivialised. The hardship faced by a dependent spouse or child is not measured merely by the quantum of arrears but by the immediate consequences of financial deprivation that even short delays in maintenance can cause," the Court observed.
The petitioner's wife had left the matrimonial home after allegedly being subjected to cruelty and sought interim maintenance. The family court directed the husband to pay ₹45,000 as interim maintenance.
The husband challenged this direction on the ground that he resides in a rented accommodation and that his aged parents are financially dependent on him. He further stated that he has taken a loan of ₹35 lakhs on EMI for the construction of a property at his native place.
The Court eventually upheld the family court's directive for the husband to pay his wife and child maintenance, but reduced the amount payable after considering that the husband was already paying ₹5,500 towards his child's school fees.
"Accordingly, this Court directs that the interim maintenance payable to the respondent no.1-wife shall remain to be ₹22,500/- per month, however, the respondent no.2/minor child shall be entitled to interim maintenance of ₹17,500/- per month. The impugned order shall stand modified to this extent," the Court ordered, setting the total interim maintenance amount payable at ₹40,000.
Advocate Hari Shankar appeared for the husband.
Amicus Curiae Payal Seth assisted the Court.
[Read judgment]