Maintenance to estranged wife 'cannot go beyond husband's means': Delhi court

A Delhi court ruled on Wednesday that a husband cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to his estranged wife exceeding his financial capacity, emphasizing that such payments must be evaluated based on the husband’s actual or presumed income. The decision came as the court dismissed an appeal filed by a woman who argued that the interim maintenance of ₹ 1,840 per month awarded by a magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act was inadequate to sustain her in Delhi. The dispute arose between an estranged wife and her former husband, whose income was central to the legal proceedings. The wife claimed that the husband owned a medical store and generated rental income from agricultural and commercial properties. However, she failed to produce any documentation to back up these assertions. As a result, the court found no evidence to determine the husband’s monthly earnings accurately. During the hearing, Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh noted that the court must consider the husband’s actual or presumed income when assessing maintenance. In an order dated September 1, 2026, the judge stated, “The appellant could only be awarded maintenance of income which the respondent no 2 was having or could be presumed to have.” This principle guided the court’s assessment of the husband’s financial situation. The magistrate court had previously estimated the husband’s income using the minimum wage rate applicable in Uttar Pradesh, where he resided. At the time, the minimum wage for an unskilled worker was approximately ₹ 11,021 per month. Based on this figure, the court determined that the husband’s ability to pay maintenance was limited accordingly. In its ruling, the court referenced the legal precedent set in the Annurita Vohra v Sandeep Vohra case, decided by the Delhi High Court. According to this precedent, the trial court should divide the husband’s income among all family members to calculate the appropriate maintenance amount. The court applied this standard in its evaluation of the case. The wife presented several arguments to support her claim. She described herself as illiterate and without a regular income, stating that her family had invested over ₹ 10 lakh in her marriage and provided household items and jewelry. She requested a monthly maintenance payment of ₹ 15,000 to ₹ 20,000 from her husband. Conversely, the husband contended that he worked as a salesman at a medical store and earned only ₹ 8,000 per month. He further asserted that he needed to support himself and their three children, making it difficult for him to provide higher maintenance. The sessions court ultimately concluded that the husband belonged to the "poor strata of society" and thus could not be required to pay more than his means allowed. It emphasized that although the maintenance amount was deemed insufficient, it did not constitute an error in the award. Therefore, the court found no grounds to overturn the magistrate’s decision. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s approach to balancing the rights of both parties in marital disputes, particularly when financial resources are limited. The court’s emphasis on the husband’s actual or presumed income highlights the importance of factual evidence in determining maintenance amounts. The case also illustrates the challenges faced by individuals in proving their financial status during legal proceedings.