In a strong and clear verdict, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that "financial support delayed is dignity denied", especially when it concerns a dependent wife and minor child. The Court underlined that maintenance is not a discretionary favour but a statutory and moral obligation.
“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,” said Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The Court was hearing a revision plea filed by the husband, challenging a Family Court’s order dated August 1, 2024, which directed him to pay ₹45,000 per month (₹22,500 each to his wife and daughter) as interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Read also:- Court Stays Order to Bring Back Woman Deported After Pahalgam Attack in J&K
The couple had married in 2015, and a daughter was born in 2017. The wife had moved out of the matrimonial home citing cruelty and later approached the Family Court for maintenance.
The petitioner-husband claimed that he was under heavy financial burden, living on rent, repaying a ₹35 lakh loan for a house at his native place, and supporting his aged parents. He argued that the order did not properly account for his liabilities. However, the Court found these claims unsubstantiated, noting:
“The petitioner has not placed any document to show that his parents are financially dependent upon him.”
Read also:- MP High Court Grants &50% Tax Relief to Pending Appeal Cases Under 2020 Samadhan Scheme
Additionally, the Court dismissed his argument about EMI deductions, stating that only mandatory deductions like income tax or provident fund contributions can be considered when deciding maintenance.
“Voluntary EMIs, especially for properties not solely owned by the petitioner, cannot reduce the legal obligation towards maintenance,” the Court stated.
Justice Sharma also addressed the claim that the wife was exaggerating expenses and failed to file income affidavits. However, the Court found no evidence that the wife had any independent income and ruled that her statements cannot be dismissed without proof.
Notably, the Court acknowledged the husband's contribution of ₹5,500/month towards the child’s school fees and considered it while adjusting the maintenance amounts. As per the modified order:
“The wife shall receive ₹22,500/month, and the minor child shall be entitled to ₹17,500/month as interim maintenance.”
In a poignant observation, the Court stressed the psychological and financial impact of delayed payments:
“Even a day’s uncertainty over basic expenses causes distress and hardship to the wife who is entirely dependent on maintenance for her survival and to provide for her child.”
The Court reaffirmed that maintenance ensures not just subsistence but the dignity of those entitled to it and concluded by modifying the interim amounts while maintaining the essence of the original Family Court order.
"When financial support is delayed, dignity is the first casualty," the Court remarked.
Title: X v. Y
