Husband can't cite early voluntary retirement as excuse to avoid paying maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that a husband cannot cite early voluntary retirement as a means to evade maintenance obligations to his estranged wife and their children.

Justice Amit Mahajan was dealing with a case where a man claimed that a family court had overestimated how much income he had, while assessing the maintenance he should pay to his wife and children.

The man submitted that he had retired early from his job and did not earn much income from his current occupation as a small-time agriculturist.

The Court, however, expressed doubts over the man's claim that he was not earning any income from his agricultural land, despite his best efforts.

Justice Mahajan added that just as women may leave jobs to boost their claims for maintenance from husbands, well-qualified men sometimes quit their jobs to downplay their financial capacity and avoid paying maintenance.

"Just as employed wives allegedly leave their jobs to gain an upper hand in maintenance disputes, quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well. It appears to be implausible that the petitioner (husband) would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income. As it is a normal tendency of the parties to not disclose their true income in matrimonial disputes, the Courts are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning (Ref. Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde," said the Court.

The Court emphasised that an able-bodied man must support his wife and children based on his real earning capacity.

"Considering that it is common for government employees to take up employment in private sector after voluntary retirement and that the petitioner (husband) is a well-bodied man capable of earning, he cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife and children by claiming that he has no income after retirement apart from his pension. The petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family," held the Court.

The Court proceeded to dismiss a revision petition filed by the man challenging a family court order directing him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and children.

The family court had awarded a monthly maintenance of ₹8,300 each to the wife and two children. The amount was later increased to ₹10,000 each for the man's wife and daughter, after the couple's son attained majority.

The family court also directed a 10 per cent enhancement of the amount every two years.

The husband questioned the correctness of this ruling in the revision petition he filed before the High Court. He argued that he had not neglected his family and that his wife was living separately by choice.

He contended that his wife had independent income from rent and was therefore not entitled to maintenance.

He also claimed that his financial position had been wrongly assessed by the family court, submitting that he had taken voluntary retirement from service and was now dependent on a modest pension and limited agricultural income.

The High Court, however, found no merit in these submissions. It noted that even though it was true that the parties had been living separately since 2013, the wife had consistently alleged cruelty and harassment by her husband. In such circumstances, the Court held, living separately did not take away her right to claim maintenance.

The Court also dismissed the contention that the wife had sufficient independent income. It noted that there was no evidence to support the claim that she was earning substantial rental income.

On the contrary, the material on record indicated that she was only receiving a nominal amount, which was insufficient to sustain herself and her children.

While the Court noticed some error in the manner in which the family court ordered the grant of financial support to the man's mother, it held there was no need to interfere with the overall maintenance award in other respects.

It, therefore, dismissed the man's petition.

Advocates Gurpreet Singh and Vaishnavi Vashishta appeared for the man (petitioner).

Advocates Deepak Garg, Mohan Singh, Sachin Kumar and Vishakha Deswal represented the petitioner's wife and daughter.

[Read Judgment]