The Delhi High Court has underscored that judicial estimation of income becomes indispensable in matrimonial maintenance cases where direct proof of income is unavailable or incomplete.
Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that courts cannot adopt a mechanical or mathematical approach while determining maintenance merely based on partial disclosures.
Instead, they must draw reasonable inferences from the overall standard of living, lifestyle, and surrounding circumstances of the parties.
The Court was hearing a husband’s challenge to a trial court order directing him to pay ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife and two minor children.
The husband argued that the Trial Court failed to correctly assess his income affidavit and did not take into account that the wife was qualified and capable of earning. He further contended that she should contribute financially instead of relying solely on maintenance.
The wife, on the other hand, submitted that she was the sole caregiver for the children and entirely dependent on her father and relatives for survival.
She asserted that the maintenance amount of ₹12,000 barely sufficed for the basic needs of herself and her children.
Justice Narula, while dismissing the husband’s plea, upheld the trial court’s reasoning. The Court found that the husband attempted to misrepresent facts regarding his income to avoid his obligations.
The Trial Court had duly verified income affidavits and adopted a balanced approach, which the High Court found fair and justified.
The Court reiterated that interim maintenance is a provisional measure meant to ensure basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings. It does not decide final rights but offers temporary relief based on the available material.
Justice Narula emphasized that the ₹12,000 monthly amount, distributed as ₹4,000 each to the wife and two children, was minimal and barely adequate for essential living expenses.
Bench and Party Details
- Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
- Court: High Court of Delhi
- Petitioner: Husband (Name withheld for privacy)
- Respondents: Wife and two minor children
- Case Type: Petition challenging interim maintenance order
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…