No Escape from Support: Delhi HC Upholds Maintenance Order Despite Husband’s Claims of Poverty

In a stern reminder of the legal and ethical obligations governing matrimonial responsibilities, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband seeking to set aside a maintenance order. Justice Saurabh Banerjee reaffirmed that a husband cannot evade his duty to maintain his wife and children by making bald assertions of financial hardship or unemployment.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case dates back to a marriage solemnized in 2006, which eventually deteriorated, leading to the wife and two daughters seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In October 2024, the Family Court at Karkardooma ordered the husband to pay Rs. 11,000 monthly to his wife and each of his two daughters. Challenging this, the husband moved the High Court, citing health issues, unemployment, and familial loan burdens as reasons for his inability to pay.

Arguments from the Trenches

The petitioner-husband argued that the initial order was based on "conjectures and surmises," asserting that his wife was a qualified professional who could sustain herself. He further contended that his health problems and lack of a regular income rendered the maintenance mandate untenable.

In response, the counsel for the respondents argued that the husband’s claims were new and were never presented before the original Family Court, making them inadmissible in a revisional proceeding. Furthermore, they pointed out that the husband had previously received lucrative job offers and had documented past earnings that contradicted his claims of total indigence.

The Court’s Analysis

Justice Saurabh Banerjee drew a sharp line regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The court noted that a revision petition is not an appeal, and it is not intended for the petitioner to re-litigate facts already settled by the Family Court or to introduce entirely new arguments without basis.

The court heavily emphasized that the husband failed to produce evidence of his alleged financial incapacitation. By scrutinizing the records, the bench noted that the husband is a professional with "technical expertise" and had previously earned significantly more in various roles. His own prior bank statements and admission of being offered jobs with high salary brackets effectively dismantled his plea of being unable to work.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a definitive ruling on the husband's obligations:

• On the Sacrosanct Duty: "It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, even by doing physical labour, and could not avoid his obligation."
• On Limited Revisional Power: "Unless the petitioner is able to show [perverseness/illegality], this Court cannot speculate and/or form an opinion which is contrary to what has been held by the learned Family Court."
• On Financial Accountability: "The petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proving that the respondent no.1 was capable of maintaining/supporting herself and the two daughters residing with her."

A Final Stand on Responsibility

The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the maintenance quantum of Rs. 11,000 per member was consistent with the "Family Resource Cake" principle established in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra . The decision underscores that legal channels cannot be used to escape one's primary duty (as articulated in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena ) to provide for those one is legally obliged to support.

For the husband, this serves as a final rejection of his claims, reaffirming that without tangible evidence of physical or financial inability, the law will prioritize the welfare of the dependents over the unverified financial defenses of the breadwinner.