The Delhi High Court has held that a wife is not entitled to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the period during which she was employed and earning. The Court modified an order of the Family Court which had directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month from the date on which the wife filed her maintenance application. The High Court held that the maintenance would be payable only for the period after the wife became unemployed.
The case arose from matrimonial proceedings between the husband and wife, who had married in 2015. The parties started living separately in November 2020. Subsequently, the wife instituted divorce proceedings alleging cruelty and also sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹5,000 per month as pendente lite maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance application until the disposal of the divorce proceedings.
The husband challenged the Family Court's order before the High Court. One of his principal submissions was that the wife was financially independent and was working when she filed the application seeking interim maintenance. He relied upon statements made by the wife in the proceedings to contend that she was employed and earning during the relevant period. He therefore argued that she could not claim interim maintenance for the period during which she had an income.
The husband also challenged the assessment of his income made by the Family Court. The Family Court had assessed his monthly income at ₹22,000. The husband disputed this assessment and claimed that he was earning only ₹16,500 per month while working as an operator at his father's photostat shop. He further submitted that he was residing and working in Haryana and argued that the Family Court should not have relied upon the minimum-wage notification issued by the Delhi Government while determining his earning capacity.
The High Court considered the challenge concerning the husband's income and found no sufficient basis to interfere with the Family Court's assessment of ₹22,000 per month. The Court noted that the minimum wages notified for Haryana were broadly similar to those applicable in Delhi. The husband had also failed to produce credible material establishing that his income-earning capacity was lower than the amount assessed by the Family Court.
The Court also considered the salary certificate relied upon by the husband to establish that he was earning ₹16,500 per month. The certificate had been issued by his father. The High Court found that the certificate by itself could not conclusively establish the husband's income because it was not supported by other cogent documentary evidence. Consequently, the Court did not accept the husband's contention that his income should be assessed at ₹16,500 per month instead of ₹22,000 per month.
The principal issue before the High Court concerned the wife's entitlement to interim maintenance during the period when she was employed. The Court examined the material placed before the Family Court and noted that the wife had herself made statements indicating that she was financially independent. In an application filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, she had stated that she was financially independent and capable of securing a future for her daughter.
The Court also considered an affidavit filed by the wife before the Family Court. In the affidavit, she had stated that she was working as a sales helper at a Bata showroom on Saturdays and Sundays and was earning ₹7,000 per month. According to the material considered by the Court, she continued in that employment until June 2024. She was subsequently removed from the job because the owner no longer required additional staff.
The High Court therefore examined the period for which the Family Court had granted maintenance. The maintenance had been directed from the date of the wife's application in January 2021. Since the wife was employed when she filed the application and continued working until June 2024, the High Court held that she was not entitled to interim maintenance for that period.
The Court consequently modified the Family Court's order. Instead of making the ₹5,000 monthly payment effective from the date of the maintenance application, the High Court directed that the payment would become payable only from July 1, 2024. This was the period immediately after the wife became unemployed in June 2024.
The High Court's conclusion was based on the wife's employment status during the relevant period. The Court found that she had been earning when she sought interim maintenance and that her employment continued for several years thereafter. As a result, the Court held that she could not claim the ₹5,000 monthly interim maintenance for the period during which she was employed.
The Court specifically held that the wife was not entitled to interim maintenance from January 8, 2021 to June 2024. The ₹5,000 monthly maintenance was therefore restricted to the period beginning July 1, 2024, when she was no longer employed.
The proceedings before the High Court involved the husband's appeal against the Family Court's direction for payment of pendente lite maintenance. The husband challenged both the assessment of his income and the wife's entitlement to maintenance. While the High Court did not accept his challenge to the assessment of his income, it accepted his contention concerning the wife's employment and modified the period for which interim maintenance was payable.
The Court's consideration of the wife's employment was based on the statements and documents already available in the proceedings. Her application under the Guardians and Wards Act contained a statement that she was financially independent and capable of securing a future for her daughter. Her affidavit before the Family Court also disclosed that she was working as a sales helper at a Bata showroom and receiving ₹7,000 per month.
According to the material considered by the High Court, the wife worked at the showroom on Saturdays and Sundays. Her employment continued until June 2024, when she was removed from the job because the owner no longer required additional staff. The change in her employment status was therefore relevant to determining the period for which she could claim interim maintenance.
The High Court distinguished between the period during which the wife was earning and the period after she became unemployed. Since she was employed from the time she filed her maintenance application until June 2024, the Court excluded that period from the maintenance award. Once she became unemployed, the Court directed that the monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 would become payable.
The Court therefore modified the Family Court's order rather than setting aside the maintenance award altogether. The monthly amount of ₹5,000 was retained, but the date from which it was payable was changed. The revised commencement date was July 1, 2024.
The High Court also examined the husband's financial circumstances while considering his appeal. The husband claimed that his monthly income was ₹16,500 and that he worked as an operator at his father's photostat shop. He relied upon a salary certificate issued by his father. However, the Court found that the certificate did not conclusively establish his income because it was not accompanied by other reliable documentary evidence.
The Court also considered the husband's submission that he worked in Haryana and that the Delhi Government's minimum-wage notification should therefore not have been relied upon. The High Court noted that the minimum wages notified for Haryana were broadly similar to those in Delhi. It further found that the husband had not produced credible evidence showing that his earning capacity was lower than the amount determined by the Family Court.
Accordingly, the High Court left undisturbed the Family Court's assessment of the husband's monthly income at ₹22,000. The modification made by the High Court related to the period for which the wife was entitled to interim maintenance.
The dispute thus involved the application of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the circumstances where the spouse seeking maintenance was employed during part of the relevant period. The High Court examined the wife's own statements regarding her employment and financial independence and found that she had been working when she sought maintenance and continued to work until June 2024.
The Court consequently held that interim maintenance could not be awarded to her for the period in which she was employed. The maintenance became payable only after she ceased working. The Court fixed July 1, 2024 as the date from which the ₹5,000 monthly payment would be payable.
The High Court's order therefore modified the Family Court's direction while retaining the amount of interim maintenance. The husband remained liable to pay ₹5,000 per month, but only from the period after the wife's employment ended. The earlier direction requiring payment from the date of the maintenance application was consequently altered.
The case concerned the parties' matrimonial proceedings and the wife's application for interim maintenance during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. The Family Court had initially directed payment from January 8, 2021. The High Court, after examining the wife's employment and the material relating to both parties' financial circumstances, modified that direction.
The High Court's final determination on the issue of interim maintenance was that the wife was not entitled to receive the amount for the period from January 8, 2021 to June 2024 because she was employed during that period. The Court directed that the ₹5,000 monthly maintenance would instead be payable from July 1, 2024, after she became unemployed.
The Court thus partly modified the Family Court's order in the matrimonial proceedings. While it did not interfere with the assessment of the husband's monthly income at ₹22,000, it altered the period for which interim maintenance was payable to the wife based on her employment status. The decision followed the Court's consideration of the wife's own statements and affidavit concerning her employment and earnings.
The matter before the High Court therefore resulted in a modification of the Family Court's maintenance order. The wife had been employed when she filed her application and continued working until June 2024. The High Court held that she was not entitled to interim maintenance for that period and directed that the ₹5,000 monthly amount would be payable only from July 1, 2024.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.