Potential to Earn vs Actual Income: Delhi High Court Clarifies Maintenance Claims Under Section 24 HMA - 2026-05-27

Balancing Financial Realities: The Delhi High Court’s Stance on Maintenance

The Delhi High Court recently issued a significant ruling addressing the intersection of a spouse's "earning potential" and the obligation to provide pendente lite maintenance. In the matter of Sachin Kumar Daksh v. Mamta Gola & Ors , a division bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed an appeal challenging a Family Court’s maintenance order, reinforcing the principle that family obligations and current financial needs hold primacy over speculative income.

A Question of Independence vs. Dependency

The case arose from a divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, who sought to challenge a maintenance award of ₹10,000 per month to his estranged wife and ₹15,000 per month to their minor daughter. The core of the husband's argument rested on the wife's professional background—holding a B.Tech and MBA—and her alleged refusal to disclose her full income or active employment. He contended that her ability to work rendered her ineligible for maintenance, citing various precedents regarding the financial responsibility of spouses.

The Battle of Bank Statements

The appellant alleged that his wife intentionally hid her earnings from institutions like ACS Academy and had diverted income to mask her financial status. However, the Court found these allegations unsubstantiated. Upon review, the Bench noted that while the wife was well-qualified, the appellant failed to provide concrete evidence of her current employment or significant income that would justify reversing the lower court's decision. The Court emphasized that there is a stark difference between the "capability to earn" and "actual earnings."

Judicial Prudence on Financial Liabilities

A poignant aspect of the judgment concerned the husband’s own financial obligations. The appellant argued that he was burdened by personal loans and a duty to support his mother. The Bench, however, maintained a pragmatic approach:

> "It is the settled law that no relaxation for any personal loan or society loan or for purchase of any house or investment in any house, can be given in the matters of maintenance, as the loans are being taken by the appellant for his own benefit."

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that with the appellant’s father receiving a pension and his sister employed, the mother's dependency on the appellant alone appeared questionable, thereby dismissing the husband's plea to reduce the maintenance amount based on these self-imposed financial pressures.

Protecting the Best Interests of the Child

The judgment serves as a vital reminder that maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act is designed to ensure that the spouse and child can maintain a lifestyle commensurate with their status before the breakdown of the marriage. The Court underscored that even if a party possesses higher qualifications, the practical reality of child-rearing often necessitates career breaks or transitions, which cannot be weaponized against the primary caregiver.

Key Observations

• On Earning Capacity: "We cannot lose sight of the fact that the capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things; a wife may leave her job due to family circumstances or to take care of the child."
• On Lifestyle Maintenance: "The amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.15,000/- per month towards the daughter, cannot be considered excessive... the said amount is just, apt, appropriate and necessary for the respondent/wife to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with that of the appellant/husband."
• On Loan Liabilities: "It is the settled law that no relaxation for any personal loan or society loan or for purchase of any house or investment in any house, can be given in the matters of maintenance."

The Final Word

By dismissing the appeal, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that Family Courts possess the discretion to arrive at reasonable maintenance figures based on an assessment of potential income, especially when the requesting party is fulfilling the role of primary caregiver. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the "concealment of facts" argument from being used as a stalling tactic to avoid lawful maintenance obligations.