Back
to Husband: Early Retirement Won't Dodge Your Maintenance Duty
In a firm rebuff to tactics aimed at undercutting family support, the has upheld a Family Court order directing a former jawan to pay monthly maintenance to his estranged wife and daughter under . Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the husband's revision petition, emphasizing that voluntary retirement at age 47 from a stable job doesn't excuse an able-bodied man from his "" to provide for his family.
From Shared Home to Separate Lives: The Rift Unfolds
The couple parted ways in amid allegations of cruelty and harassment by the husband and his family. The wife, a homemaker, filed for maintenance in for herself and their two children (a son, now major, and a daughter). The , awarded ₹8,300 monthly to the wife and daughter initially, later hiking it to ₹10,000 each, with a 10% escalation every two years from , plus ₹11,000 in litigation costs. The son received support until turning 21 in .
The husband, who took voluntary retirement from in , challenged this in CRL.REV.P. 452/2023, arguing the Family Court overestimated his income and ignored the wife's self-sufficiency.
Husband's Defense: Pension, Plough, and Paternal Home
The petitioner's counsel, and , contended the wife wasn't neglected, as she held the matrimonial home (B-51/6, Biharipur) bought by him, and had let it out for rent while living at her parental house—concealing ₹30,000 monthly income. They highlighted her admission of not wanting to reunite, disqualifying her under .
On income, they stressed his post-retirement status as a small agriculturist with meager yields (₹62,634 annually per 2019-20 MSP rates, minus costs), plus a ₹25,000 pension, far below the Family Court's ₹50,000 monthly assessment. No neglect was proven, they argued, and his mother's partial dependency was overlooked.
Wife's Counter: Cruelty, Kids' Needs, and Erratic Payments
Respondents' advocates, led by , countered with the wife's consistent cruelty claims, sufficient on . The children pursued higher education with no independent income; the wife was a homemaker. They dismissed old MSP data as misleading and noted the husband's irregular payments. The matrimonial home fetched only ₹2,500-₹3,000 rent (as admitted), and it was sold in 2022 for a Faridabad flat—no windfall.
Court's Sharp Scrutiny: Pensions, Plots, and Plausible Earnings
Justice Mahajan affirmed the Family Court's nuanced assessment. Pre-retirement salary slips showed net pay rising from ₹33,252 (2016) to over ₹40,000 by 2019, with retirement unlikely to drop income to zero for a B.Com graduate and fit 47-year-old. Echoing reports of strategic job quits in matrimonial battles—
"just as employed wives allegedly leave their jobs to gain an upper hand... well-qualified husbands [do] to avoid paying proper amount"
—the court permitted "guesswork" on true earnings (
).
Citing
Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg
(2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314), it ruled: husbands must
"earn money even by physical labour"
if able-bodied. Pension at ₹25,000 plus agricultural ₹3 lakhs yearly (Family Court's figure) justified ₹50,000 total. Wife's rent claims lacked proof; even adjusted, maintenance stood firm. The court trimmed the husband's mother's "share" from full to ₹15,000 yearly, given her family pension and co-siblings.
Maintenance's social justice aim—to ( Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , (2008) 2 SCC 316)—prevailed over disentitling bars like refusal to cohabit without cause.
Key Observations
"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 husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation..."
"As it is a normal tendency of the parties to not disclose their true income in matrimonial disputes, the Courts are permitted to make some and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning."
"The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to ..."
No Relief Granted: Petition Dismissed, Duties Endure
The High Court found "no merit," dismissing the petition and applications on . The ₹10,000 monthly (escalating) continues, signaling courts' wariness of retirement ruses. This reinforces able-bodied spouses' earning obligations, potentially curbing similar evasions while prioritizing dependents' needs in India's maintenance landscape.
