{"id":8831,"date":"2026-07-07T12:17:38","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T06:47:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=8831"},"modified":"2026-07-07T12:00:51","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T06:30:51","slug":"maintenance-settlement-payment-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/maintenance-settlement-payment-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Husband, Even When Negotiating Settlement With Wife, Can\u2019t Disobey Family Court\u2019s Order To Pay Maintenance: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Can a husband stop paying maintenance because settlement talks are going on? Delhi High Court said No. and held that settlement talks cannot be used as an excuse to disobey a Family Court order directing maintenance payment.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan<\/strong>, dismissed a contempt appeal<\/strong> filed by a husband in a matrimonial maintenance dispute<\/strong>. The case arose after the Family Court directed him to pay interim maintenance<\/a> to his wife and child, but the amount was allegedly not paid despite repeated court orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The marriage between the parties took place in 2004. A son was born from the marriage. Later, disputes started between the husband and wife, and the wife filed a maintenance <\/a>petition under Section 125 CrPC.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Family Court directed the husband to pay \u20b925,000 per month to the wife and \u20b925,000 per month to the child. The total monthly maintenance came to \u20b950,000<\/strong>, apart from school fees and other educational expenses of the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also directed that arrears had to be cleared within three months<\/strong>. However, according to the wife, the husband did not comply with the maintenance order. This led to contempt proceedings<\/strong> before the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Single Judge noted that the husband had not paid maintenance from September 2024 onwards and had also not cleared the arrears. The Court also recorded that the husband was employed in Dubai and had appeared through video conferencing<\/strong>, but he could not give any proper explanation for non-payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cHe is unable to give any cogent explanation for not paying any amount whatsoever to the petitioner after September, 2024.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Considering the facts, the husband was held guilty of contempt. The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt is quite evident that the respondent is in wilful disobedience of the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Family Court.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The matter became more serious when the husband again did not physically appear before the Court and also did not make any payment. His stand was that funds would be arranged only if the wife agreed to an overall settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court strongly noted this conduct and recorded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe respondent continues to be steadfast in refusing to pay even a portion of the maintenance amount.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Judge also observed that arranging funds only if there was an overall settlement reflected negatively on his bona fides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the husband was living in Dubai and had refused physical appearance, the Court directed steps for impounding or suspending his passport<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The husband then challenged the contempt orders before the Division Bench <\/strong>of the Delhi High Court. His counsel appeared through video conferencing. When the Court asked whether any amount had been paid as per the Family Court order, the answer was clearly no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The husband submitted that he was willing to pay \u20b940 lakh as a lump sum amount to finally settle the disputes<\/strong>, but the wife was demanding a higher amount. The Division Bench said that settlement is a matter between the husband and wife, and they may try to resolve it amicably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Court made it clear that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe Appellant cannot wilfully continue to disobey the order passed by the Family Court and refuse to pay maintenance to the wife and the child.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Delhi High Court finally held that the orders passed by the Single Judge were valid and required no interference. The appeal was dismissed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td>Purpose<\/strong><\/td>How It Applie In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Allows wife, child, or parents to claim maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves.<\/td>Wife filed maintenance case under this section.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971<\/strong><\/td>Allows appeal against certain contempt orders.<\/td>Husband filed contempt appeal under this section.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 10, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971<\/strong><\/td>Gives High Court power to punish contempt of subordinate courts.<\/td>Husband was held guilty of contempt under this section.<\/td><\/tr>
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971<\/strong><\/td>Law dealing with disobedience of court orders and contempt proceedings.<\/td>Used after alleged non-payment of maintenance.<\/td><\/tr>
Gaurav Sondhi v. Diya Sondhi, 120 (2005) DLT 426<\/strong><\/td>Delhi High Court precedent on consequences of maintenance default.<\/td>Family Court referred to it for default consequences.<\/td><\/tr>
Passport impounding \/ suspension direction<\/strong><\/td>Step used to secure appearance of a person before Court.<\/td>Directed because husband was in Dubai and did not appear physically.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n