Husband cannot cite wife’s inherited assets or family wealth to deny interim maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a husband cannot cite his wife's inherited property or the gifts received from her parents or relatives to challenge her claim for maintenance.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the claim for maintenance must be assessed with reference to her present earning capacity and ability to sustain herself in the standard of living she was accustomed to during her marriage and not on the financial status of her natal family.

"This Court is of the view that the stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim," the Court said.

This Court was dealing with a petition moved by a husband to challenge a trial court order directing him to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to his wife.

The husband sought to rely upon the wife‘s inherited, family-gifted assets, and the background of her parents, to contend that she possesses sufficient independent means and was, thus, disentitled to maintenance. The Court opined that the contention was legally untenable.

However, it also said that the assessment of the husband’s financial capacity is not confined to income and assets from regular sources but extends to earnings and profits derived from any family business in which he has a share or interest.

"This includes profits, dividends, or any other financial benefits accruing from the family enterprise. The rationale is that maintenance is intended to ensure the wife‘s reasonable living standards, and the husband‘s capacity to pay encompasses all legitimate sources of income, including those from business ventures, whether owned individually or as part of a family enterprise," the bench said.

The couple had married in December 2018. Following certain disputes, the wife approached a trial court alleging domestic abuse and financial neglect. She, thus, prayed for interim maintenance from him.

The husband opposed the plea, claiming that he was unemployed and that the wife had sufficient financial means due to properties, investments and assets received from her family.

However, the trial court granted an interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to the wife. The decision was later upheld by the sessions court. The husband then approached the High Court.

Considering the husband’s claim that he had no income, the Court scrutinised his bank statements and income tax records. It found evidence of regular financial transactions in earlier assessment years and material on record suggesting a lifestyle inconsistent with the plea of financial hardship.

On the argument that the wife was educated and therefore capable of earning, the Court said her educational qualifications or notional earning potential cannot by itself constitute a valid ground to deny her interim maintenance.

"What is relevant for consideration is whether her actual income, if any, is sufficient to sustain herself in a manner befitting the status and lifestyle she was accustomed to during the marriage. On the material presently available, no such conclusion can be drawn in favour of the petitioner-husband," it added.

The Court rejected the husband's plea that wife was financially superior or self-sufficient.

"The documents produced by the petitioner in this regard pertain largely to the sale of inherited assets, maturity of fixed deposits, or isolated transactions, none of which establish a regular or recurring source of income on the part of the respondent," it opined.

Finding no fault with the trial court decision, the High Court held that the monthly maintenance of ₹50,000 was reasonable, given the facts of the case. It clarified that this amount would also cover the wife’s residential expenses.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Prashant Mendiratta, Janvi Vohra, Akshat Kaushik, Veenu Singh, Vaishnavi Saxena and Aamya.

The respondent was represented by advocate Nawal Kishore Jha.

[Read Order]