Summary of the judgment in CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 49/2024

Here are the key points and a concise, yet comprehensive summary of the case

Parties & Background

Petitioner: Mr. Sxxxxx; Respondent: Ms. Pxxxxx.

Marriage on 26 May 2017; one son born 23 August 2019.

Respondent (Wife) filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on 6 October 2023

• Wife filed a maintenance Case before Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, (M.T.
  Case No. 522/2023).
• Wife Claimed cruelty and rental income of ₹4 lakhs+ for petitioner.
• Family Court (20 May 2024) ordered interim maintenance of ₹50,000/month for wife and child from petition’s filing till final order.

Interim Order Challenged

Petitioner (Husband) challenged the interim maintenance order.

Petitioner’s (Husband) Contentions

• Interim Maintenance amount as excessive,
• Submitted that he is unemployed and depended on his ailing mother.
• He further submitted that he has no real income and ancestral rental income is shared and received by his mother.
• Husband further submitted denial of fair hearing: adjournment denied when main counsel was ill.
• Respondent (Wife) is qualified and capable of self-support; alleged suppression of her own financial resources.

State’s & Trial Court’s Position

• Interim maintenance is a preventive as a social-justice measure.
• Detailed income proof unnecessary at this stage.
• Respondent (Wife) demonstrated genuine need.
• petitioner (Husband) made only “bare denials” without documentary backing (e.g. tax returns).

Legal Principles Applied

• Section 125 CrPC aims to prevent destitution of spouse/child pending trial.
• It is settled law that An able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children. unemployment pleas are “bald excuses” without compelling proof (citing Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705).
• Husband’s statutory duty to maintain wife and child is “sacrosanct” (Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314).

Court’s Analysis

• Petitioner (Husband) admitted share in ancestral properties yielding ₹73,000/month.
• No credible evidence of petitioner’s inability to pay.
• Respondent (Wife) bears childcare costs alone and the child (aged ~5) who requires food, education, healthcare.
• Rs. 50,000/month deemed neither excessive nor disproportionate to parties’ living standards.

Delhi High Court Decision

• Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma while relying on Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705). held that it is settled law that An able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children.
• Court further held Husband’s statutory duty to maintain wife and child is “sacrosanct” while relying on (Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314).
• Revision petition dismissed; interim maintenance order passed by District Court upheld.
• Petitioner free to submit fresh financial proof in Family Court at appropriate stage.

The post An able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children : Delhi High Court appeared first on Prime Advocates Delhi.