Wife Sought Maintenance From Husband After 40 Years Of Separation: Delhi High Court Says Long Separation Does Not End His Liability

Can a wife seek maintenance after living separately from her husband for more than four decades? The Delhi High Court refused to cancel ₹15,000 monthly ad-interim maintenance, but left the husband’s objections open for detailed consideration.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has held that long separation between a husband and wife does not, by itself, end the wife’s right to claim maintenance when their marriage legally continues, and no decree of divorce has been passed.

Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a revision petition filed by the husband challenging an order of the Family Court, Saket, directing him to pay ₹15,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance to his wife.

The parties were married according to Hindu rites in April 1975 and had three children, who are now major, married, and independently settled.

According to the wife, the husband assaulted her and drove her and the children out of the matrimonial home around March 1985. She claimed that she later shifted to Delhi for employment and maintained herself through work. She claimed that she had no sufficient independent income or property and sought ₹40,000 per month as maintenance.

The husband disputed her version. He claimed that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home in February/March 1985 while he was away on Army duty and took two children with her. He stated that an FIR concerning her disappearance was also registered and that despite his efforts, she never returned.

The husband argued that they had lived separately for more than 40 years and that the wife had not sought maintenance from him during that period.

He also pointed to alleged discrepancies in the wife’s financial affidavits. According to him, an earlier affidavit stated that she was self-employed and earning approximately ₹5,000 per month, while a later affidavit stated that she was unemployed and had no income.

The Family Court nevertheless granted the wife ₹15,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance, observing that the husband was receiving pension and was capable of maintaining her.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the Family Court had not properly considered his objections regarding the wife’s alleged desertion, the delay of more than 40 years in seeking maintenance, her past employment and Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

The Delhi High Court noted that the parties were still legally married and no divorce decree had been passed between them.

The Court observed:

“The marital relationship, therefore, continues to subsist.”

The Court held that a wife’s right to claim maintenance during the subsistence of marriage is a recognised statutory right, subject to the conditions prescribed by law.

On the effect of decades of separation, the Court said:

“The mere fact that the parties have been living separately for a considerable period does not, by itself, bring the marriage to an end or extinguish the wife’s claim for maintenance.”

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which explained the object of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court had observed:

“The purpose and object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide immediate relief to an applicant.”

The High Court noted that the reason behind the couple’s separation was seriously disputed. The husband alleged that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home in 1985, while the wife alleged that she was compelled to leave because of cruelty and ill-treatment.

The Court held that whether the wife voluntarily left, had sufficient reason to live separately, or the parties were living separately by mutual consent required examination of the pleadings and, if necessary, evidence.

The Court observed:

“The mere assertion of the husband that the wife deserted him cannot, by itself, defeat her claim for interim maintenance.”

The High Court also considered Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 144(4) BNSS. The provision restricts maintenance where a wife is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or where the spouses are living separately by mutual consent.

However, the Court held that the applicability of these exceptions depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Since the husband and wife had given conflicting versions regarding their separation, the issue could not be finally decided at the ad-interim stage.

The husband also relied upon the extraordinary delay of more than four decades in seeking maintenance.

On this argument, the High Court observed:

“Delay in seeking maintenance, by itself, cannot be treated as a complete bar to the claim.”

The Court further said:

“Maintenance is a continuing obligation, and the absence of an earlier claim does not necessarily establish that the respondent had voluntarily relinquished her right to maintenance for all times to come.”

Referring to Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, the High Court also noted that a wife does not have to be completely destitute before she can seek maintenance. Even where she earns some income, the relevant question is whether that income is sufficient for her to maintain herself.

The Court also considered the husband’s objection that the Family Court had not properly dealt with his reply, financial liabilities and other objections. However, it held that an order granting ad-interim maintenance does not require a final determination of every disputed issue.

Importantly, the High Court clarified that the ₹15,000 per month maintenance is only ad interim and remains subject to variation after the Court considers both parties' complete financial material.

The Court said:

“The direction does not constitute a final adjudication of the respondent’s entitlement to maintenance or of the petitioner’s liability for the entire period claimed by her.”

The High Court again stressed that the absence of a divorce decree was significant because the parties remained husband and wife in the eyes of the law.

The Court observed:

“The petitioner cannot contend that merely because the respondent has been living separately for several decades, her status as his wife has ceased or that her claim for maintenance is extinguished.”

At the same time, the husband’s objections regarding desertion, the 40-year delay, the wife’s past employment, discrepancies in her financial affidavits and his own financial responsibilities have not been finally decided against him.

The High Court ultimately refused to interfere with the ₹15,000 ad-interim maintenance order and dismissed the husband’s revision petition. It directed the Family Court to consider the affidavits, documents and objections of both parties while determining the further quantum of maintenance.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• 40 Years Apart, Husband Still Faces Maintenance-
  Long separation alone cannot end a wife’s maintenance claim.
• Husband’s Desertion Defence Was Not Enough
  His claim that she voluntarily left in 1985 could not defeat interim maintenance at this stage.
• Wife Claimed Maintenance After 40+ Years-
  Even four decades of silence did not automatically bar her claim.
• Wife’s Income Discrepancies Still Matter
  Her past employment and conflicting financial disclosures remain open for examination.
• Husband’s ₹15,000 Liability Is Not Final-
  His pension, liabilities and financial responsibilities must still be considered.