Husband to pay 80% of stated monthly income to wife

Delhi High Court on May 13, 2025, ordered a husband, who claims to have an earning of Rs 15,000 per month, to pay Rs 12,000 per month (Rs 7,500 to wife and Rs 4,500 to his child) as interim maintenance by 10th of every month. The High Court said that the final maintenance amount is subject to the condition that the family court verifies their ITRs and bank statement. So, until the time the family court verifies this, interim maintenance needs to be paid by the husband by the 10th of each month.

The husband has been practicing law in Punjab & Haryana High Court since 2010 and got married to a teacher employed with the Delhi Government in January 2016. Barely about 18 months after marriage the wife left him in July 2017 and since that time they have been living separately.

The husband alleged that she was a government teacher earning close to Rs 40,000 to Rs 45,000. He also alleged that she voluntarily choose to remain unemployed and instead asked for maintenance money from him. The husband pointed out that major expenses for the child’s education are borne by the Delhi Government, including tuition fees, books, and other facilities. The wife’s lawyers countered this argument by saying that she left her job to take care of their minor child as she has nobody at home to take care of him in her absence.

The wife also alleged that he has rental income from multiple properties which he failed to disclose to the court. Moreover, her lawyers said that her past employment as a teacher cannot be a valid ground to deny her rightful maintenance. She told the court that since it took long hours to commute and she was not getting any employment near her home, she had to give up her teaching career to take care of their minor child, as a single parent.

Delhi High Court heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Delhi High Court said that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support and also to take care of the child while the mother is at work.

Delhi High Court said that in such circumstances, the cessation of employment by the wife cannot be viewed as voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of childcare. Hence in this context the interim maintenance order was passed by the court.

Read below to know what led to this victory for the wife and what husbands should know about it.

How did this case start?
According to the order of Delhi High Court dated May 13, 2025, here are the details:

• January 12, 2016: Husband, a lawyer, marries a girl working as a teacher with Delhi government. They had one child born out of this marriage.
• July 2017: She left his house and since then has been living separately.
• December 8, 2022: She left her teaching job and has been since unemployed.
• October 21, 2023: Delhi family court passed a maintenance order asking the husband to pay her Rs 7,500 per month each to the child and her. The family court also ordered the husband to pay arrears of this maintenance from January 2023 onwards.

What did the Delhi High Court say?
According to the order of Delhi High Court dated May 13, 2025, here’s what the court said:

• This Court is of the view that the respondent/wife was admittedly employed as a teacher earning approximately Rs 30,000 per month until 2022.
• However, she was compelled to resign from her position due to the demands of single-handedly raising the minor child, coupled with the burden of long commuting hours.
• These circumstances, as reflected in the pleadings and submissions, reasonably explain her discontinuation from employment. It is undisputed that the respondent(wife) is presently unemployed.
• In the present case, it is not in dispute that the parties have been residing separately, and the respondent/wife has been taking care of the minor child as a single parent. The material on record reflects that the respondent was previously employed as a guest teacher; however, owing to the compelling responsibilities of singlehandedly raising the child and the considerable distance of her workplace, she had to discontinue her employment.
• This Court finds the explanation both reasonable and justified. It is well settled that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment, especially in cases where there is no family support also to take care of the child while the mother is at work.
• In such circumstances, the cessation of employment by the respondent cannot be viewed as voluntary abandonment of work, but as a consequence necessitated by the paramount duty of child care.

Court refers to the Supreme Court precedent which held being capable of earning alone is not a valid reason to reduce maintenance
Supreme Court precedent referred to: Shailja v. Khobbana

The Delhi High Court said:

• This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the learned Family Court has committed no error in appreciating the factual matrix and applying the correct legal principles, including the ratio laid down in Shailja v. Khobbana: (2018) 12 SCC 199, wherein the Supreme Court had held that mere capability to earn is not the same as actually earning, and being capable of earning alone is not a valid reason to reduce maintenance.
• It is not the potential earning capacity of the wife but her actual income at the relevant time that is to be considered while determining the amount of maintenance. Thus, the learned Family Court has rightly observed that there exists a material distinction between being ‘capable of earning’ and ‘actually earning’.
• In this Court’s view, the Family Court has rightly held that for the period during which the respondent/wife was employed, she was not entitled to maintenance. However, for the period thereafter – when it is prima facie evident that she remained unemployed due to her role as the primary caregiver for the minor child – the notional income of the petitioner was appropriately assessed.

Delhi High Court interim maintenance judgement
The Delhi High court said on May 13, 2025:

• The Family Court shall reconsider the application for interim maintenance afresh, specifically taking into account the income affidavits and bank statements filed by both parties, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
• In the meantime, as an interim arrangement, the petitioner(husband) shall continue to pay a sum of Rs 7,500/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs 4,500 per month to respondent no. 2/minor child, which shall be without prejudice to the final determination by the learned Family Court, and any amount paid shall remain adjustable in future maintenance.

Priyanka Desai, Co-founder and Partner, The Fort Circle, says: “While this may appear unfavorable to the husband; if in fact, the Family Court comes to a finding that that the interim maintenance was granted on a 'notional assessment' of the husband's income without considering his actual income, it is likely that the order for interim maintenance is reversed.”

Ekta Rai, Advocate, Delhi High Court, says: “The precedent set by this case is that while determining interim maintenance under Section 125, the court must look beyond the educational qualifications or prior employment of the wife and consider the ground realities of her current situation, especially when she is the primary caregiver of a minor child. The judgment reinforces that capability to earn is not the same as actually earning, and the court cannot deny maintenance solely on the basis of a woman’s qualifications or past income if she is unable to work due to genuine logistical constraints arising out of caregiving responsibilities.”

Desai adds: “This order establishes two key principles on interim maintenance, (i) maintenance cannot be granted on the basis of notional assessment/ estimation of a spouse's income; a thorough assessment of actual income is essential; (ii) a spouse's (wife in this case) decision to leave employment, for childcare responsibilities is a reasonable and justifiable ground for granting interim maintenance. What qualifies as being a reasonable and justifiable ground for granting interim maintenance would depend on the facts of each matter.”

Vivek Joshi, Senior Associate, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says: "The High Court primarily considered that the responsibility of caregiving to a minor child falls disproportionately upon the parent with custody, often limiting their ability to pursue full-time employment. In such circumstances, any claim for maintenance would not be barred on the simpliciter plea that the wife voluntarily abandoned full-time employment since the same was necessitated due to the duty of child care. It was further held that mere capability to earn is not the same as actually earning, and being capable of earning alone is not a valid reason to reduce or disentitle the maintenance.

Joshi adds: "Therefore, the High Court did not agree with the contentions raised by the husband owing to the prevailing position of law. Notwithstanding the same, the High Court directed the Ld. Family Court to consider the issue of quantum on the basis of affidavits of income and expenses rather than assessing the same notionally. It is evident that the present case re-affirms the prevailing position of law that voluntary abandonment of work by the wife due to the duty of child care will not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. The judgment also affirms that mere capability of earning is not equivalent to actual earning which is a fine line of distinction to be drawn in cases related to maintenance."