The Delhi High Court has modified a Family Court’s maintenance order, reducing the monthly amount payable by a husband to his estranged wife from ₹25,000 to ₹17,000.
The Court held that while the husband’s Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2018-2019 was the correct basis for determining income, awarding more than half of that income to the wife was excessive.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on July 13, 2016. In March 2020, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance, alleging that although her parents had spent about ₹15 lakhs on the marriage, the petitioner husband and his family had remained dissatisfied with the dowry and had subjected her to continuous harassment, beatings, and demands for an additional ₹5 lakhs and a car.
She claimed that on 17.10.2018 she was mercilessly beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home, and that even when she returned with her brother on 17.02.2019, she was not allowed to enter the house and was abused and threatened. She alleged that the petitioner, who earns about ₹1,50,000/- per month from his jeans manufacturing business, had neglected and refused to maintain her; thus, compelling her to seek maintenance of ₹75,000/- per month.
The husband disputed these allegations, saying the wife left on her own and asserting that his financial capacity was limited.
However, the family court ordered the husband to pay ₹25000 maintenance per month to the wife.
A revision petition was filed before the High Court against a decision of Family Court-02, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Court relied on the ITR for the AY 2018–2019, filed by the husband disclosing annual income of ₹5,18,268/-. In this regard the single judge bench noted the maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month is excessive, merits consideration.
The High Court found the Family Court had rightly considered that the respondent wife had admitted in her cross-examination that she had not filed any document or evidence to support her claim that petitioner herein is a businessman, manufacturing jeans and earning ₹1,50,000/- or having any share in the HUF property.
“On the other hand, the petitioner husband had admitted during his cross-examination that the ITR for the AY 2018–2019 (Ex. PW-1/5) pertains to him and reflects an annual income of ₹5,18,268/-. He also admitted that he was the proprietor of the firm in respect of which the said ITR was filed. In the absence of any credible documentary evidence to the contrary, the learned Family Court was justified in treating the income disclosed in the said ITR as the petitioner’s income for the purpose of determination of maintenance.”, High Court further noted.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma relied on the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra wherein the High Court had held that the net income of the husband is to be apportioned in “units” or “shares”, ordinarily by keeping two shares for the husband and one share for the wife where there are no children or other dependents, so that the wife ordinarily is held entitled to about one third of the husband’s net income.
