Wife entitled to interim maintenance despite being qualified; Court rejects husband's plea to factor voluntary EMIs in maintenance calculation.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the interim maintenance awarded to Priti Ray and her minor child amidst ongoing matrimonial disputes with her husband, Rakesh Ray. The judgment, delivered by Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., emphasized the distinction between a wife's capacity to earn and actual earnings, affirming that mere potential to earn does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance in the absence of substantial income.
The court was hearing three interconnected revision petitions concerning maintenance disputes under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Priti Ray sought maintenance following allegations of desertion and cruelty by her husband, who works as a Drilling Engineer in Kuwait.
The court criticized the lower courts' decisions to deny interim maintenance to the wife based solely on her educational qualifications and potential earning capacity. The judgment underscored that managing a household and raising a child are significant contributions that need recognition. Dr. Sharma noted that the wife had been financially dependent on her husband since their marriage in 2012 and found no evidence of her independent income sufficient for sustenance.
Additionally, the court dismissed the husband's argument that his financial obligations, such as personal loan EMIs, should be prioritized over statutory maintenance duties. It clarified that only statutory deductions like income tax should be considered when assessing income for maintenance purposes. The court reiterated that maintenance is essential for ensuring a dignified life for the wife and child, reflecting equity in financial stability post-marriage.
The judgment also highlighted the practical difficulties faced by women re-entering the workforce after prolonged marital responsibilities. It stressed that societal expectations often compel women to prioritize family over career, which should not be held against them in maintenance proceedings.
The court's decision mandates that Rakesh Ray pay Rs. 50,000 per month to Priti Ray and Rs. 40,000 per month for the child’s expenses, effective from the filing date of the respective applications. It also ordered the husband to clear any arrears within six months.
Dr. Sharma's judgment further advocated for mediation over litigation in matrimonial disputes, recognizing the emotional strain and adversarial nature of prolonged court battles. The ruling marks a step towards more equitable treatment of spousal contributions in marriage, emphasizing both financial and non-financial roles.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Wife cannot be denied interim maintenance on the sole ground that she is educated and capable of earning, unless there is proof of actual income sufficient for her sustenance.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125
Rakesh Ray v. Priti Ray, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2856165
