Sad truth that husbands force wives to approach courts for payment of maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that denying maintenance to an estranged wife and child is one of the worst offences from a humanitarian perspective and it does not behove a husband [Pradeep Kumar v Smt Bhawana and Anr]..Justice Asha Menon said that it is a sad truth that husbands force their wives to file execution petition to delay maintenance payments despite orders of courts. “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,” the Court said in its order..Justice Menon was dealing with a petition by a man challenging a December 2021 order of a family court at Karkardooma.He had been directed to pay ₹20,000 as consolidated amount for interim maintenance of his estranged wife and child. The arrears were to be cleared within two months and further interim maintenance was to be paid by the 5th of each month.However, he said that he was only willing to pay ₹4,000 per month to his wife and child because his monthly income was only ₹28,000 and he needs to pay ₹10,000 from it to his parents for their maintenance.The petitioner further alleged that his estranged wife was earning ₹30,000 per month by taking private tuitions.Counsel appearing for the wife and child submitted that the man’s father was a government servant and needed no financial help.The counsel further submitted that bank details showed that the petitioner was earning much more that ₹28,000 and was residing with his father and hence, he had no expenses towards rent either..The High Court termed the petitioner’s attitude shameful and noted that he had stated on record that he owns a car and smartphone. Yet he is wishing to peg the maintenance of his wife and children to less than half of what he claims to spend on his parents, the Court said.“A growing child and a mother who is taking care of all the needs of such a growing child is to somehow manage with ₹4,000, whereas, the petitioner and his parents can have a greatly enhanced level of comfort by spending ₹25,000 to ₹28,000 on themselves,” the judge said.On the issue of the wife earning income by providing tuitions, the Court noted that it is without doubt that this allegation is wild but it is also curious to note as to why he was unwilling to make such extra efforts himself to earn more income and meet his financial obligations as a husband and a father..Justice Menon concluded that there was no error evident in the family court’s order and no ground made out to quash the proceedings before the family court.It, therefore, dismissed the plea and imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the petitioner..Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav appeared for the petitioner.Respondents were represented by advocates Praveen Goswami and Vijay Chauhan..[Read Order]