Court reiterates the sacrosanct duty of a husband to provide maintenance, dismissing the revision petition challenging the maintenance order of Rs. 11,000 per month each for wife and minor daughters.
The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed the revision petition filed by Lokesh Kumar Singh challenging the maintenance order requiring him to pay Rs. 11,000 per month to his estranged wife, Neeta Singh, and an equivalent amount for each of his two minor daughters. The court emphasized the ethical and legal obligation of a husband to provide financial support to his wife and children, regardless of financial difficulties or irregular income.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, reaffirmed the principles of maintenance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court underscored that even in cases of financial strain or irregular employment, the husband's duty to maintain his family remains inviolable.
Lokesh Kumar Singh, the petitioner, had argued that due to his contractual employment and various health issues, he was unable to fulfill the maintenance order issued by the Family Court. However, the court found these claims insufficient to overturn the maintenance order, noting that Singh had failed to provide substantial evidence of his incapacity to pay.
The court highlighted that the past employment of Neeta Singh, which the petitioner cited to challenge her claim for maintenance, did not negate her current need for financial support. The petitioner could not demonstrate that his wife was financially independent at present.
In its detailed judgment, the court also addressed the scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating that the petitioner must demonstrate clear perversity or illegality in the original judgment to warrant interference. The court found no such grounds in the present case, pointing out that the Family Court's decision was based on a reasonable and plausible interpretation of the facts.
The court also referenced the principles for determining maintenance quantum, affirming that the maintenance awarded was consistent with established legal standards. The judgment cited the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, reinforcing the method of equitably dividing the husband's net disposable income among family members.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, reiterating the fundamental duty of the husband to ensure the welfare of his wife and children, despite personal or financial hardships.
Bottom line:-
Husband's duty to provide maintenance to wife and minor children is sacrosanct, regardless of financial difficulties or irregular employment.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 438, 442, 528; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 125.
Lokesh Kumar Singh v. Neeta Singh, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2902650
