Delhi High Court says 'quitting jobs common strategy by well-qualified husbands' to avoid paying maintenance

Delhi High Court

• Delhi High Court upheld maintenance order for wife and daughter
• Court denies husband's reduced income and pension claims
• Living separately does not bar wife's right to maintenance

Did our AI summary help?

In a ruling that speaks to a recurring pattern in matrimonial disputes, the Delhi High Court has made it clear that stepping away from a stable job cannot be used as a tactic to avoid financial responsibility towards one’s family.

The case revolved around a husband who challenged a family court’s assessment of his income and the maintenance he was directed to pay his estranged wife and children.

The man argued that he had opted for early retirement and was now dependent on a modest pension, along with limited earnings from agricultural activity. He maintained that the lower court had overestimated his financial capacity. But the High Court was not convinced.

Court questions claims of reduced income

Justice Amit Mahajan, while examining the case, expressed skepticism about the husband’s claim that his agricultural land yielded no meaningful income. The Court noted that it was difficult to accept that a person would voluntarily leave a well-paying, secure job without arranging for another source of livelihood.

“Just as employed wives allegedly leave their jobs to gain an upper hand in maintenance disputes, quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well,” the Court observed. It added that in such cases, it is not unusual for parties to understate their actual income.

Recognising this tendency, the Court reiterated that judges are permitted to rely on reasonable estimation. “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 guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning,” the order stated, referring to earlier legal precedent.

Duty to provide cannot be avoided

At the heart of the judgment lies a clear principle: financial responsibility towards one’s spouse and children does not disappear with retirement, especially when the individual is capable of earning.

“Considering that it is common for government employees to take up employment in private sector after voluntary retirement and that the petitioner (husband) is a well-bodied man capable of earning, he cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife and children,” the Court held. It further emphasised that merely relying on pension income is not sufficient justification to reduce or evade maintenance obligations.

Wife’s separate living not a barrier

The husband also contended that his wife had been living separately by choice and therefore should not be entitled to maintenance. However, the Court noted that the separation dated back to 2013 and was accompanied by allegations of cruelty and harassment made by the wife.

In such circumstances, the Court said, living apart does not negate a woman’s right to seek financial support. The judges found no reason to deny maintenance on this ground.

Claims of independent income rejected

Another key argument put forward by the husband was that his wife had her own source of income through rental earnings. The Court, however, found no convincing evidence to support this claim.

On the contrary, the material on record suggested that whatever income she did receive was nominal and insufficient to sustain herself and the children. This further weakened the husband’s case.

Maintenance order upheld

The family court had initially directed the husband to pay Rs 8,300 per month each to his wife and two children. After the son reached adulthood, the amount was revised to Rs 10,000 each for the wife and daughter, with a provision for a 10 percent increase every two years.

While the High Court noted a minor issue in the way financial support to the husband’s mother had been addressed, it found no reason to interfere with the core maintenance order. The revision petition was ultimately dismissed.