Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Renu Bhatnagar, 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
Interim maintenance entitlements depend on maintaining a comparable standard of living post-separation, regardless of the spouse's employment status.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 24 - Appeal against maintenance order - Appellant-wife challenges denial of her own maintenance while receiving maintenance for minor child - Financial disparity between parties recognized, with appellant earning Rs. 1,25,000/- per month versus respondent’s income of over Rs. 1 crore - Court highlights that mere employment of wife does not negate entitlement to maintenance; standard of living during marriage must be considered - Maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for both. (Paras 23, 31, 33)
(B) The foundational purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent economic disparity, ensuring the weaker spouse and children maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed in the marriage. (Paras 24, 29)
Facts of the case:
The couple married on 22.11.2013 and separated in October 2019, with custody of their daughter resting with the appellant. The respondent, despite having a substantial income, made sporadic contributions towards maintenance, leading to the appeal for enhanced child support and maintenance for the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The maintenance amount awarded to the appellant was found insufficient relative to the respondent's earning capacity, leading to an ordered increase in payments to ensure parity.
Issues: Did the Family Court err in not awarding maintenance to the appellant and setting the child’s maintenance too low?
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that education and employment of the wife do not eliminate her right to financial support, nor do they negate the need for maintaining the standard of living established during marriage.
Result: Appeal allowed, maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- monthly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage and child custody arrangements post-separation. (Para 2 , 4 , 7) |
| 2. claims for maintenance based on income disparities. (Para 3 , 9 , 12 , 14 , 22) |
| 3. substantial contributions from the respondent are a critical factor. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. arguments focused on the insufficiency of maintenance and hidden financial details. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. respondent's arguments asserting appellant's capability to sustain herself. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court analyzing arguments and calling for nuanced financial assessment. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. court disagrees with family court's conclusions regarding appellant's financial independence. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. determining maintenance based on standards of living. (Para 25 , 31) |
| 9. court emphasizing the disparity in income and assistance taking precedence over employment. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. final judgement alters maintenance to promote parity in living standards. (Para 32 , 33) |
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 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 the present appeal seeking: (a) modification of the Order dated 01.03.2024; (b) grant of Rs. 3,50,000/- as maintenance for herself; and (c) enhancement of the child’s monthly maintenance from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 96,000/-, along with directions for the respondent to clear arrears.
SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in rejecting her claim for maintenance despite acknowledging that the re
