NEW DELHI<\/em>: The Delhi High Court<\/strong> has clearly held that a Husband<\/strong> Foreign Salary<\/strong> earned in foreign currency<\/strong> cannot be automatically converted into Indian rupees for deciding the amount of maintenance<\/a><\/strong> payable to his wife<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clarified that foreign earnings alone do not give a wife the right to demand maintenance<\/strong> by mechanically applying Indian formulas after currency conversion, without considering the surrounding facts and living conditions abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While passing the order, Justice Amit Mahajan<\/strong> observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cMere earning in foreign currency does not, by itself, entitle the wife to claim maintenance by mechanically converting the husband’s foreign income into Indian currency and applying the formulae evolved by Indian courts without due regard to the attendant circumstances\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n -making it clear that courts must look beyond simple exchange-rate calculations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter before the Court involved cross petitions filed by both the husband and the wife. These petitions challenged a Family Court order<\/strong> which had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife. The wife approached the High Court seeking enhancement of this amount, while the husband sought reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the wife, the husband was employed as a Software Engineer with Amazon and was earning $150,300 per year earlier, with his current salary stated to be $232,000 annually. She argued that when converted into Indian currency, his income came to around Rs. 14,61,000 per month<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She further claimed that she had no independent source of income, was not gainfully employed after leaving her job<\/strong> in December 2021, and that the husband had no other dependants except her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, the husband strongly contested these claims. He argued that the wife was highly educated, had previously worked with Bank of America<\/strong>, and was earning around Rs. 9,00,000. He alleged that she had deliberately resigned from her job<\/strong> and chosen to remain unemployed only to claim maintenance<\/a>. According to him, her educational qualifications and professional background clearly showed her capacity to earn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining the record, the High Court noted that the interim maintenance<\/a> of Rs. 50,000 per month fixed by the Family Court was not in line with the husband\u2019s earning capacity or the social status of the parties. However, the Court also made it clear that fixing interim maintenance is not a matter of exact calculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court explained this legal position in clear terms by stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMore often than not, particularly in cases where one of the spouses is employed abroad and has failed to place complete and candid disclosure of income before the Court, the assessment necessarily involves a degree of estimation and informed guesswork.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further clarified that at the interim stage, judges are not expected to conduct a detailed trial or a roving inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was emphasised that courts must arrive at a reasonable figure based on available documents, lifestyle indicators, surrounding circumstances, and the admitted earning capacity of the earning spouse. The Court reiterated that interim maintenance decisions are meant to balance fairness, not to mirror the entire income of the husband.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also referred to earlier judgments and reinforced the settled principle that while a husband has a moral and legal duty to maintain his wife, this duty does not mean that his full income should be proportionately reflected in the maintenance amount. The Court specifically pointed out that a person earning and living abroad also spends in that foreign currency and faces a much higher cost of living.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reaffirming this approach, the Court held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMere earning in foreign currency does not, by itself, entitle the wife to claim maintenance by mechanically converting the husband\u2019s foreign income into Indian currency and applying the formulae evolved by Indian courts without due regard to the attendant circumstances.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Taking a balanced view of all facts, including the husband\u2019s foreign employment, his living expenses abroad, and the wife\u2019s present unemployment, the High Court decided to enhance the interim maintenance. The amount was increased from Rs. 50,000 per month to Rs. 1,00,000 per month, based on what the Court described as a broad, reasonable, and rounded-off assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further directed that the enhanced interim maintenance would be payable from the date on which the wife had filed her application for interim maintenance. Any amount already paid by the husband would be adjusted, and arrears, if any, were ordered to be cleared within the time specified by the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment is significant as it clearly warns against blindly converting foreign salaries into Indian currency for maintenance purposes. It reinforces that maintenance orders must be fair, realistic, and sensitive to actual living conditions<\/strong>, especially in cases involving spouses working and residing abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws and Sections Referred in the Case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td> Section \/ Reference<\/strong><\/td> Explanation<\/strong><\/td> How It Was Used in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 125 CrPC <\/a>(principle referred)<\/td> Provides for maintenance to wife to prevent vagrancy and destitution<\/td> The Court reiterated that the purpose of maintenance is social justice, not enrichment<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Income affidavit filed in DV proceedings<\/td> Requires disclosure of income, assets and liabilities<\/td> Husband\u2019s affidavit showing post-tax income of $10,000 per month was considered<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Judgment<\/strong><\/td> Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) 2 SCC 386<\/td> Wife should live with dignity, not luxury or penury<\/td> Cited to explain the standard of living principle<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Judgment<\/strong><\/td> Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705<\/td> Husband has a sacrosanct duty to maintain wife<\/td> Relied upon to affirm husband\u2019s legal obligation<\/td><\/tr> Delhi High Court Judgment<\/strong><\/td> K.N. v. R.G., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704<\/td> Foreign income cannot be blindly converted into INR<\/td> Directly applied to reject mechanical currency conversion<\/td><\/tr> Delhi High Court Judgment<\/strong><\/td> Bindu Chaudhary v. Deepak Suga<\/a> (2016) 234 DLT 108 (DB)<\/td> Cost of living in foreign country must be considered<\/td> Used to reinforce that foreign expenses match foreign earnings<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Revision Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td> Sections 397\/401 CrPC (implied)<\/td> Power of High Court to revise Family Court orders<\/td> Basis for entertaining cross revision petitions<\/td><\/tr> Interim Maintenance Jurisprudence<\/strong><\/td> Judicial principles<\/td> Interim maintenance involves estimation, not exact math<\/td> Court clarified limits of inquiry at interim stage<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Counsels Appearing in the Matter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n