A Delhi court has refused interim maintenance to a woman earning more than Rs 60,000 a month despite her claim that her husband earns over Rs 1 lakh monthly, observing that financial support is not automatically payable merely because one spouse earns more than the other, reports TOI's Koushiki Saha.
The ruling came while the court was hearing cross-appeals arising from a maintenance dispute between the estranged couple. While the wife sought maintenance for herself, the husband challenged the financial support awarded to their minor daughter, arguing that the amount was disproportionate considering the mother's income.
The court ultimately declined both pleas, holding that the wife was financially independent while the maintenance awarded to the child served an entirely different purpose.
Court declines wife's plea for interim maintenance
The wife had approached the court seeking interim maintenance, arguing that her husband's monthly income exceeded Rs 1 lakh.
However, Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh observed that interim maintenance cannot be granted as a matter of course merely because one spouse earns more than the other.
The court noted that the woman was educated, gainfully employed and earning a substantial and regular income of more than Rs 60,000 per month.
In such circumstances, the judge held, the grant of interim maintenance could not be treated as an automatic entitlement.
The court therefore declined her request for personal maintenance.
Husband's challenge to daughter's maintenance also fails
While the wife sought maintenance for herself, the husband challenged the financial support awarded to their minor daughter.
He argued that the amount fixed by the trial court was disproportionate and that the mother's earnings had not been adequately considered while determining the maintenance.
The dispute stemmed from an earlier order directing him to pay Rs 7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition until January 2021. From February 2021 onwards, the amount was increased to Rs 14,000 per month, along with an annual increment of 5%, until the disposal of the petition.
The husband contended that the maintenance awarded to the child was excessive in view of the mother's income.
The court, however, was not persuaded.
'Maintenance is meant for a child's present needs'
One of the husband's key arguments was that the maintenance amount should be diverted into fixed deposits or a savings account for the child's future benefit rather than being spent as regular maintenance.
Rejecting the plea, the court underscored the purpose behind child maintenance.
"Maintenance is intended to meet the present and recurring needs of the child," the court observed.
It added that if the entire amount were parked in investments instead of being used, it would "defeat the very purpose" for which maintenance is awarded.
The judge noted that the needs of a growing child extend beyond educational expenses and include food, clothing, healthcare, transportation and other day-to-day requirements that demand regular financial support.
The court also pointed out that the parent with custody contributes more than just money towards a child's upbringing.
"The custodial parent already contributes through continuous care and supervision," the order said.
Consequently, a somewhat larger financial contribution from the non-custodial parent, particularly where his income is substantially higher, could not be considered unreasonable, the court observed.
Child's right to maintenance independent of visitation disputes
The husband had also argued that the mother had deprived him of access to the child and therefore could not be trusted with handling the maintenance amount.
The court rejected that contention as well.
According to the order, a child's right to receive maintenance cannot be made dependent on custody or visitation disputes between parents.
Such disagreements, the court said, must be addressed through separate legal proceedings and cannot be used to deny financial support intended for the child's welfare.
With both appeals dismissed, the court upheld the maintenance awarded to the minor daughter while declining the wife's plea for interim maintenance, reiterating that child support is meant to address a child's immediate needs and that spousal maintenance depends on the specific financial circumstances of each case.
(With TOI inputs)
