\u00a0NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong>, in a judgment delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan<\/strong>, dismissed a husband\u2019s plea seeking reduction of maintenance<\/a><\/strong> payable to his wife and children, reinforcing that financial responsibility cannot be avoided by voluntary retirement or underreporting income.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband, a former CRPF employee, argued that he had limited income after retirement<\/strong> and that his wife was earning rental income<\/strong> and had chosen to live separately<\/strong>. However, the Court found no sufficient proof of substantial income on the wife\u2019s<\/strong> part and held that small rental earnings do not make a woman self-sufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court reiterated the legal position under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong>, referring to judgments such as Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai<\/em><\/strong> and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg<\/em><\/strong>, emphasizing that maintenance is meant to prevent destitution and that an able-bodied man cannot escape his duty to maintain his family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the issue of income, the Court rejected the husband\u2019s attempt to show reduced earnings<\/strong> after voluntary retirement. It observed that quitting a stable job without valid justification cannot be used as a ground to reduce maintenance<\/strong> and noted a pattern where parties may suppress true income in matrimonial disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clearly stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJust as employed wives allegedly leave their jobs to gain an upper hand in maintenance disputes, quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well-qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Further, the Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt appears to be implausible that the petitioner would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Rejecting the claim of financial incapacity, the Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAny assertion of the petitioner having no source of income apart from his pension pursuant to retirement cannot be accepted.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also emphasized the obligation to earn and maintain family, stating: \u201cThe petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on overall assessment, including past salary, pension, and earning potential<\/strong>, the Court upheld the income estimation of around \u20b950,000 per month and found the maintenance awarded to be reasonable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petition was dismissed<\/strong>, and the maintenance order remained unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Law for maintenance to wife, children, parents<\/td> Court said it ensures financial support and prevents dependency<\/td><\/tr> Conditions under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Wife may not get maintenance if adultery, refusal to live without reason, or mutual separation<\/td> Court examined but found wife\u2019s case valid due to allegations of cruelty<\/td><\/tr> Article 15(3) Constitution<\/strong><\/td> Allows special laws for women and children<\/td> Used to justify protective nature of maintenance law<\/td><\/tr> Article 39 Constitution<\/a><\/strong><\/td> State should ensure livelihood and support<\/td> Reinforces purpose of maintenance provisions<\/td><\/tr> Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai<\/strong><\/td> Maintenance is for survival, not punishment<\/td> Court relied on this to justify continuation of maintenance<\/td><\/tr> Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg<\/strong><\/td> Husband must earn even by labour if able-bodied<\/td> Used to reject husband\u2019s claim of no income<\/td><\/tr> Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde<\/strong><\/td> Court can estimate income if not disclosed properly<\/td> Court used this to justify income \u201cguess work\u201d<\/td><\/tr> Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra<\/strong><\/td> Income division principles in maintenance<\/td> Court corrected wrong allocation to mother<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n