Delhi High Court Sets Out Key Principles To Determine Maintenance, Calls For Reasoned Orders By Family Courts

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set out the key principles to be followed while determining maintenance to the wife and child, while also calling for reasoned orders by Family and Mahila Courts in the national capital.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasised that orders granting interim maintenance in matrimonial cases must be based on a clear and reasoned assessment of income and circumstances, and not on presumptions or guesswork.

The judge said that even at an interim stage, maintenance order must disclose the reasoning process and the basis on which the Court has arrived at the quantum of maintenance or has declined to grant it.

“Therefore, this Court is of the view that while brevity in interim orders is permissible, absence of reasoning is not. Even a prima facie or tentative view must be reasoned and must reflect: (i) the documents and material relied upon for assessing income; (ii) the approximate income or earning capacity that has been presumed; and (iii) the rationale for the amount directed to be paid as interim maintenance,” the Court said.

Justice Sharma made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a husband challenging the family court order directing him to pay a Rs. 20,000 as monthly maintenance to the wife and their minor son.

The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration on determination of interim maintenance.

“assessing income (of parents) is the first and most crucial step, as maintenance cannot be determined in vacuum. Only after establishing what the earning spouse actually earns, or can reasonably be expected to earn, can a just and proportionate amount be fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be maintained,” the Court said.

Further, the Court said that passing of an order of interim maintenance cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it directly concerns the immediate sustenance of a spouse who may be without any independent means of livelihood.

It added that Family Courts must bear in mind that delay or casualness in the process may have the effect of depriving an already vulnerable person of basic sustenance, defeating the very purpose of the provision intended to protect and uphold the right to live with dignity.

Justice Sharma went ahead to observe that a wife's prior employment or academic qualifications may indicate her potential, but they do not automatically translate into current employability or financial independence, particularly after years devoted to family care and household responsibilities.

Observing that childcare is not a marginal or secondary responsibility but a full-time commitment, the Court said that yo deny or reduce maintenance merely because the wife “was working before marriage”, ignores how caregiving fundamentally transforms a person‟s time, opportunities, and employability.

It was also held that a wife living with her parents after separation with husband is no ground to deny or reduce maintainance to her.

“In conclusion, this Court hopes that the aforesaid observations and guidelines are kept in consideration by the learned Family Courts and Mahila Courts while dealing with petitions filed by a spouse/children seeking maintenance,” the Court said.

Justice Sharma ordered that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all the Principal District and Sessions Judges of the District Courts in Delhi, with a direction to circulate the same to all judges, particularly those presiding over the Family Courts.

A copy of the judgment is also to be forwarded to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy, for its inclusion in the relevant training modules and academic discussions.

Title: X v. Y

Click here to read order