The Delhi High Court has adjudged that a husband cannot avoid paying maintenance to his estranged wife and child by taking voluntary retirement, stressing that financial responsibility continues regardless of employment status.
In a judgment delivered on March 16, Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a petition filed by a man challenging a Family Court order that had awarded maintenance to his estranged wife and children in December 2022.
The Family Court had directed the husband to pay Rs 8,300 per month each to his wife and two children. After the son attained majority on March 2, 2021, the amount was revised to Rs 10,000 per month each for the estranged wife and daughter. The order also provided for a 10% increase every two years and Rs 11,000 as litigation expenses.
ALSO READ | Gujarat Tables Uniform Civil Code Bill, Mandates Registration Of Live-In Relationships
The husband argued that he had taken voluntary retirement from the CRPF and was now dependent on pension and limited agricultural income. He also claimed that his estranged wife was not entitled to maintenance as she chose to live separately and had rental income.
The Court rejected these claims, noting that the parties had been living separately since 2013 and that the estranged wife had consistently alleged cruelty. It held that such circumstances justified her living apart and did not disentitle her from maintenance.
On the issue of voluntary retirement and income, the Court made a key observation: “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 would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income.”
The Court further emphasised the continuing duty of the husband, stating: "Quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well-qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well."
“The petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family… Any assertion of the petitioner having no source of income apart from his pension pursuant to retirement cannot be accepted.”
ALSO READ | Relief For Elvish Yadav In Snake Venom Case As Supreme Court Sets Aside FIR
The Court also rejected the claim that the estranged wife had substantial rental income, noting that only a small amount of Rs 2,500 to Rs 3,000 per month was shown and no supporting material was placed on record.
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.
Essential Business Intelligence, Continuous LIVE TV, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.