MAINTENANCE; HUSBAND'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN, EVEN IF UNEMPLOYED, IS SACROSANCT.

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, challenged a judgment dated 22.12.2022, passed by the Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in MT Case 358/18

By this impugned judgment, the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹8,300/- per month to each of the respondents (wife and daughter of the petitioner) and the son of the petitioner until the son attained majority on 02.03.2021

Thereafter, maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month was awarded to the wife and daughter.

The Family Court also directed a 10% increase in the maintenance amount every two years from the order date and awarded litigation expenses of ₹11,000/-

The petitioner contended that he had not neglected the respondents, citing Respondent No.1's admission during cross-examination on 04.07.2019, that she was in possession of the house at B-51/6, Biharipur, purchased by the petitioner

The petitioner argued that Respondent No.1 resided at her paternal house, letting out the shared household for financial gain, thus concealing rent income

He further claimed that Respondent No.1 admitted she did not wish to reside with him and was thus not entitled to maintenance

The petitioner also asserted that his income was assessed on the higher side, given he was a pensioner and an agriculturalist with meagre income from a small landholding, claiming an annual agricultural income of only ₹62,634/- as per 2019-2020 MSP prices

The respondents opposed these submissions, stating the petitioner was misleading the court with old MSP rates, and that Respondent No.2 (daughter) and her brother were pursuing higher education, with Respondent No.1 being a housewife with no other source of income

They also highlighted the petitioner's irregular maintenance payments

The parties were living separately since 2013, and Respondent No.1 had consistently alleged cruelty and harassment from the petitioner and his family

The petitioner took voluntary retirement from CRPF in July 2022, at around 47 years old, despite having years of service left

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance to Respondent No.1 (wife) on the grounds that she allegedly willingly decided not to reside with the petitioner or concealed rental income

2. Whether the Family Court's assessment of the petitioner’s income was excessive or unreasonable, particularly considering his voluntary retirement and claimed meagre agricultural income

3. Whether the Family Court erred in granting one share of the petitioner's income to his mother for maintenance

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which mandates financial support by able-bodied individuals to dependents unable to support themselves, emphasizing its role as a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution

It cited Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai : (2008) 2 SCC 316, which clarified that the object of maintenance is not punitive, but to prevent vagrancy, and that "unable to maintain herself" means the lack of means equivalent to the standard of living with the husband

The court also referred to Anju Garg and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg : 2022 SCC Online SC 1314, which reiterated the sacrosanct duty of a husband to provide financial support to his wife and minor children, even if it requires physical labour

The principle from Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde : 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 was also considered, allowing courts to make presumptive assessments (guesswork) of income in matrimonial disputes where parties conceal true income

The court also considered the conditions under which a wife may be ineligible for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, such as adultery, refusal to cohabit without justifiable cause, or mutual consent to live apart

The court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that Respondent No.1 was ineligible for maintenance due to her choice not to reside with him or her alleged rental income concealment.

It noted that Respondent No.1 had made consistent allegations of cruelty and harassment, which satisfied the threshold of balancing probabilities for a justifiable reason to live separately

The court also dismissed the petitioner's claim of substantial rental income, observing that Respondent No.1 only admitted to receiving ₹2,500/- to ₹3,000/- per month, and the property later sold in 2022 to purchase a new residence

Regarding the petitioner's income assessment, the court accepted his voluntary retirement and pension of around ₹25,000/-

However, it found the petitioner's claim of meagre agricultural income implausible, especially considering his voluntary retirement at 47 years old with years of service remaining

Citing Bharat Hegde, the court exercised its discretion to make a presumptive assessment, considering the petitioner's employment until July 2022, his salary escalating to over ₹40,000/- by 2019, and his B.Com qualification

Based on Anju Garg, the court stressed the petitioner's sacrosanct duty to maintain his family, irrespective of claims of reduced income post-retirement, and deemed the ₹50,000/- per month assessed income reasonable, given his pension and earning capability

The court observed that the Family Court erroneously granted a full share of the petitioner's income to his mother, who received a family pension and owned agricultural land, and for whom the petitioner had a brother sharing maintenance responsibility

The court noted that only an amount of around ₹15,000/- per year ought to have been considered for his mother's partial dependency

However, even considering this, and that the petitioner's income might have been slightly lower initially, the awarded maintenance was deemed reasonable, especially with the 10% increase every two years

The court upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife and daughter, acknowledging the petitioner’s sacrosanct duty to maintain his family despite his voluntary retirement or claims of reduced income

The court concluded that, even with a minor adjustment to the mother's maintenance share, the overall awarded maintenance was reasonable

The pending applications were also disposed of