The Delhi High Court enhanced maintenance for a wife and minor child to ₹1,50,000 per month. Even though the wife was educated and employed as an Assistant Professor, the Court held that her income was insufficient to match the lifestyle she enjoyed during marriage, given the husband’s annual income exceeding ₹1 crore.
Brief Facts of the Case
- Marriage solemnized in 2013, one daughter born in 2016.
- Parties separated in 2019, custody of the child remained with the wife.
- Husband, a Senior Computer Scientist in the USA, earns over ₹1.5 crore annually.
- Wife works as an Assistant Professor with income of around ₹1.25 lakh/month.
- Family Court granted ₹35,000/month for the child plus school expenses, but no maintenance to the wife.
- Wife appealed, seeking ₹3.5 lakh/month for herself and ₹96,000/month for the child.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Interim maintenance (maintenance pendente lite).
Arguments of Appellant (Wife)
- Huge disparity in incomes: her modest salary vs. husband’s crore-plus earnings.
- Family Court undervalued the child’s expenses and wrongly denied her own maintenance.
- Maintenance should allow her and the child to live in accordance with the standard of living during marriage.
- Husband concealed assets and income details, misleading the court.
Arguments of Respondent (Husband)
- Wife is highly qualified and employed, capable of maintaining herself.
- Section 24 should not create “idle dependents.”
- Wife concealed her actual earnings and enjoys a comfortable lifestyle even after separation.
- He has already contributed significantly to the child’s upkeep.
- Sole financial burden of the child cannot rest on him when wife has adequate income.
Court’s Observations
- Purpose of Section 24 is not to equalize incomes but to avoid financial hardship and ensure both spouses maintain comparable dignity.
- An earning wife is not automatically disentitled to maintenance; the real test is whether her income is sufficient to maintain the lifestyle of the matrimonial home (Rajnesh v. Neha, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai).
- Stark disparity between incomes: husband earns nearly ten times more.
- Wife’s income insufficient to sustain herself and the child in the same standard of living.
- Family Court erred by ignoring this qualitative difference.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The High Court enhanced the maintenance from ₹35,000 to ₹1,50,000 per month (cumulative for wife and child). Other directions of the Family Court remained unchanged.
Comments from the author of this website
When I read this judgment, I can’t help but feel that the law continues to place an unfair burden on men, no matter what the circumstances are. Here, the wife is not only educated but also well-employed, earning more than a lakh every month as an Assistant Professor. In any other context, that would be considered a stable, respectable income. Yet in court, her earnings were downplayed, and the focus was solely on the fact that the husband earns more.
What troubles me is the reasoning that a separated wife must continue to live at the same lifestyle level as her husband, even after years of living apart. Marriage breakdown already means two different households—two sets of bills, two sets of responsibilities. Expecting the husband alone to bridge that gap creates a never-ending liability. It feels less about supporting genuine need and more about penalizing a man for being successful.
From my perspective, this turns maintenance into a weapon rather than a shield. Instead of protecting those who are truly dependent or vulnerable, it’s being stretched to guarantee “lifestyle parity.” That was never the spirit of maintenance laws. I can only imagine how many men in similar situations feel disheartened—working hard, earning well, and yet being told that their money is not really theirs, that they must constantly subsidize a spouse who is perfectly capable of standing on her own feet.
This judgment sends a message that no matter how qualified or employed a woman may be, she can still claim a significant portion of her husband’s income under the banner of “standard of living.” For men, it reinforces the fear that marriage can become a financial trap with no escape.
Final Thoughts
Courts must certainly ensure that children and genuinely dependent spouses are cared for. But fairness also means recognizing when a spouse is capable of self-sufficiency. Unless this distinction is made, men will continue to feel that the system is stacked against them—not protecting families, but punishing one half of it.
Read Complete Judgement Here
Leave A Comment