No Presumption Of Wife’s Earning Capacity At Interim Maintenance Stage: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that while determining interim maintenance for a wife, the husband’s bare or unsubstantiated claim that she is earning or able to maintain herself cannot be taken at face value and cannot lead to a presumption that the wife has the capacity to support herself. In the case before the court, a dispute arose over the award of interim maintenance to a wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The wife had approached the Family Court claiming that she did not have any independent income and was fully dependent on her husband for her sustenance. She stated she had no movable or immovable assets, no source of income of her own, and that her level of education was limited. In response, the husband contested her claim for maintenance by asserting that the wife was employed as a nursery teacher earning a monthly income and therefore was capable of maintaining herself. The husband also contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was not entitled to maintenance. The Family Court initially awarded the wife interim maintenance at a modest rate, finding that she lacked the means to support herself.

On appeal, the High Court examined whether it was permissible to accept the husband’s assertion about the wife’s alleged employment and earnings without corroborative evidence at the interim stage of maintenance proceedings. The bench emphasised that for the purpose of granting interim maintenance, a wife cannot be presumed to have the capacity to maintain herself solely on the basis of a bald or unverified claim made by the husband about her earning status. The court observed that where the husband disputes the wife’s claim of dependency by alleging that she is employed, the onus is on him to provide prima facie proof to support such an assertion. The High Court noted that in the matter before it, the husband had failed to place credible documentary evidence on record to substantiate his claim that the wife was working and earning income. There was no production of pay slips, employment contracts, or any other tangible proof that could demonstrate the wife’s alleged earnings or employment status. As a result, the court held that without such supporting material, the husband’s bare statement was insufficient to displace the wife’s claim of dependency.

The Delhi High Court clarified that the assessment of maintenance at the interim stage must be based on material that is on record and that speculative or unproven assertions cannot form the basis for denying maintenance. The bench underlined that interim maintenance serves the purpose of ensuring that a dependent spouse is not left without means of subsistence while the maintenance dispute is being adjudicated, and that the spouse seeking maintenance should not be put to hardship due to a lack of immediate income. The court said that absent credible evidence showing that the wife was in fact employed and earning, it was inappropriate to conclude that she was capable of self-support. The High Court therefore upheld the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance, emphasising that the wife could not be assumed to be earning or capable of maintaining herself without documentary proof presented by the husband to establish such a claim.

In the context of the specific award, the High Court noted that although the husband disputed his own income as well, and had made assertions about his earnings, the court’s focus was on whether the wife’s entitlement to maintenance could be negated by an unsupported assertion about her earning capacity. The bench reiterated that for interim maintenance purposes, a mere assertion without even prima facie evidence is not sufficient to negate the wife’s claim that she was dependent. The court accordingly ruled that the wife should continue to receive interim maintenance, as the husband’s uncorroborated claim of her earning capacity could not be accepted to defeat her application.

In conclusion, the High Court’s order makes clear that in interim maintenance applications, the mere assertion by a husband that the wife is earning and capable of self-support cannot be taken as a basis to deny maintenance; rather, there must be prima facie proof backing such a claim. Without credible evidence, a dependent wife cannot be presumed to have an ability to maintain herself, and interim maintenance should be awarded to ensure her sustenance during the pendency of the proceedings. 

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community