In a recent landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court delved into the intricacies of spousal maintenance, shedding light on the importance of shared financial responsibilities. Headed by Justice V Kameshwar Rao, the court emphasized the gender-neutral nature of maintenance provisions outlined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

Case Overview:

The focal point of this case was a husband’s challenge to the family court’s directive to pay his wife ₹30,000 monthly, coupled with litigation expenses amounting to ₹51,000. The family court, in its April 2022 ruling, considered the wife’s lack of independent income and opted to increase the maintenance amount. However, upon meticulous review, the Delhi High Court felt compelled to address the nuanced scenario of a capable yet unemployed spouse.

Judicial Insights:

Justice Rao’s bench stressed that a spouse possessing a reasonable earning capacity, who voluntarily opts for unemployment without a valid explanation or sincere efforts to secure employment, should not unilaterally burden the other party with financial responsibilities. The court clarified that while precise financial equivalence is not mandatory, it should aim to provide relief to the financially dependent spouse during legal proceedings.

Furthermore, the court invoked Sections 24 and 25 of the HMA, emphasizing that these sections encompass the rights, liabilities, and obligations arising from marriage. This underscores the gender-neutral stance embedded in the legal framework, ensuring a balanced approach to spousal maintenance disputes.

Alignment with Previous Rulings:

This significant judgment aligns with a prior ruling in September by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, reinforcing that maintenance provisions are not intended to foster a population of idle individuals awaiting financial benefits from their partners.

Legal Arguments and Counterarguments:

The husband, represented by advocate Aditya Gaur, argued that he was already paying ₹2,000 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Subsequently, this amount was escalated to ₹30,000 under the HMA without any change in circumstances. Additionally, he contested his wife’s financial dependence, asserting that she earned over ₹25,000 as a receptionist.

In response, the wife, represented by advocate Sachin Bansal, clarified that the initial maintenance amount of ₹21,000 under the Domestic Violence Act was under challenge at the sessions court. She also underscored that her role as a social worker did not entail a salary.

Conclusion:

This case exemplifies the Delhi High Court’s commitment to a fair and balanced approach in spousal maintenance disputes. It emphasizes the court’s dedication to considering earning capacity while upholding the principle of gender neutrality, marking a significant milestone in the evolution of maintenance dynamics within marital relationships.