Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5591
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNGAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ
SMT SHIKHA BADHANI – Appellant
Versus
SHRI HEMANT BADHANI – Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 252/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.S. Sahni, Ms. Jasmine Sahni, Ms. Ashmine Sahni
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Rahul, Mrs. Sutapa Ghose
A spouse's earning does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance; the standard of living during marriage is crucial when assessing maintenance awarded.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24 - The appellant-wife challenges the Family Court's order denying her maintenance while granting maintenance for the minor child; the court emphasizes the need for both spouses to maintain a comparable lifestyle and adjusts child maintenance from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per month due to financial disparity. (Paras 20-33)
(B) Maintenance - The court asserts a wife’s earning does not bar her from maintenance; focus on lifestyle during marriage remains crucial. (Paras 25-30)
Facts of the case:
The parties married in 2013, have a minor daughter, and lived separately since 2019, with financial disparity evident in income levels.
Findings of Court:
The appeal results in enhancing the maintenance amount for the child and the wife based on the stark income differences and necessity for sustaining prior living standards.
Issues: The court examined the denial of maintenance to the wife and adequacy of child support.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling clarifies that maintenance rests on ensuring that both parties maintain a quality of life reflective of their previous marriage status, irrespective of the wife's income level.
Result: The appeal is partially allowed with a modification to the maintenance order.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The court clarified that a spouse's earning does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance, emphasizing that the standard of living during marriage is the crucial factor when determining maintenance obligations (!) (!) (!) .
-
The appellant-wife, despite being employed and earning approximately Rs. 1,25,000 per month, is entitled to maintenance because her income is insufficient to sustain the standard of living she was accustomed to during the marriage, especially given the substantial income disparity with the respondent (!) (!) (!) .
-
The respondent's annual income exceeds Rs. 1 crore, with additional benefits such as RSUs, stock options, and other employment perks, which significantly enhance his financial capacity (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the purpose of maintenance under the relevant law is to ensure that both spouses can maintain a comparable standard of living, especially when there is a stark disparity in their incomes, rather than to equalize incomes (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the assessment of a wife’s earning capacity is not solely about her ability to earn but also about whether her income suffices to maintain her and her child's lifestyle from the period of marriage (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the appellant’s current income, while sufficient for her needs, does not match the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage, and her residing with her parents is temporary and cannot be indefinite (!) (!) .
-
The court observed that the respondent has the financial capacity to provide adequate maintenance and that the existing order of Rs. 35,000 per month for the child, along with expenses, was inadequate given the circumstances (!) (!) .
-
Consequently, the court increased the maintenance amount for the appellant and the minor child from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 per month, to reflect the disparity in their financial capacities and the standard of living during the marriage (!) .
-
The court reaffirmed that other directions in the original order remain binding, and the appeal was disposed of with this modification (!) .
-
The court also noted that a spouse’s concealment of financial assets and income can influence the assessment of maintenance, and such concealment can mislead the court regarding the true financial status of the respondent (!) (!) .
-
The legal principles establish that earning capacity does not automatically disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance; rather, the focus is on whether her income is sufficient to maintain her and her child at a standard comparable to that during the marriage (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and case initiation regarding the marriage and separation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. arguments presented for the appellant's maintenance claim. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 3. court's observations on financial capacities and prior living standards. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. clarification of legal principles for maintenance claims. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 5. final decision to enhance the maintenance granted. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
RENU BHATNAGAR, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , challenging the Order dated 01.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟) passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court-01, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Family Court‟), in HMA No. 1074/2020, titled Hemant Badhani v. Shikha Badhani. By the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the „ HMA ‟) filed by the appellant-wife, awarding maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month along with all school-related expenses for the minor daughter. However, the learned Family Court declined the appellant's claim for her own maintenance. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-wife has approached this Court seeking modification of the Impugned Order, enhancement of maintenance for the child, and grant of maintenance for herself.
BRIEF FACTS
2. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present case arises, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2013, according to the Hindu rites and customs, in Delhi. From this wedlock, a daughter was born on 08.08.2016. It is the admitted position that, due to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since October 2019. Since the date of separation, the custody of the minor child has remained with the appellant.
3. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the HMA on the grounds of cruelty. In response thereto, the appellant-wife filed her written statement, denying the allegations and simultaneously moved an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking interim maintenance for herself and her daughter.
4. The appellant contended that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home without any fault of her own, and has since been residing with her parents. She is employed as an Assistant Professor in a college under the Delhi University and, despite her qualifications, earns a limited income. On the other hand, the respondent is employed as a Senior Computer Scientist with Adobe Systems, USA, and draws 2 a substantial income.
5. The appellant further submitted that the respondent has not made any voluntary contribution towards the maintenance of the minor child or the appellant herself, except for sporadic payments of school fees in late 2020. It was only after the intervention of the Court that the respondent started making regular contributions for the child‟s expenses.
6. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and financial affidavits of the parties, passed the Impugned Order dated 01.03.2024, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 35,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor daughter in addition to all school-related expenses, but declined to award any maintenance to the appellant.
7. According to the appellant, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the financial disparity between the parties. While the respondent‟s annual income exceeds Rs. 1.5 crores (as reflected in his ITRs and supported by bank statements, perks, RSUs, and other employment benefits), her monthly income is approximately Rs. 1,25,000/-. The appellant contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded for the child was insufficient and that she too is entitled to maintenance to sustain the standard of living to which she was accustomed during cohabitation.
8. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the appellant has filed
