The Delhi High Court recently made an observation and explicitly stated that if a wife takes up employment to contribute to her and her child's daily expenses because of financial constraints, this should not serve as a basis for reducing the maintenance payments owed to her by her husband.

A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal concluded the above while hearing an appeal made by the husband who contested the family court's decision to not alter the monthly maintenance amount, which was set at Rs. 8,000 for the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the minor child.

The court noted that despite being granted interim maintenance, the husband was in arrears of approximately Rs. 4,67,000 and had not been fulfilling his obligation to pay maintenance. Given this financial situation, if the wife had begun working and was earning an additional income of approximately Rs. 10,000 per month to support her and their daughter's daily expenses, it should not be considered a valid reason to reduce the maintenance amount.

The husband in this particular case had requested a reduction in the maintenance amount, citing a decrease in his income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and alleging that the wife had started working without disclosing her employment and earnings.

The court noted that the husband is a senior architect with over 20 years of experience. While his business experienced a downturn during the pandemic, it has since recovered and is thriving once again.

The court, however, observed that the wife's efforts to generate an income ranging from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month should not be regarded as a valid justification for modifying or reducing the interim maintenance amount.

This decision was influenced by the fact that the husband had not fulfilled his responsibility of making maintenance. In such circumstances, the court found that the wife's efforts to support herself financially should not impact the maintenance obligation placed on the husband.

“We hereby conclude that the grounds taken by the appellant (husband) for the reduction in interim maintenance, have been rightly rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 16.03.2022, and the present Appeal is hereby dismissed along with pending applications,” the court stated.

As a result, the court rejected the appeal.