Delhi HC ruling maintenance: The Delhi High Court (HC), while hearing a petition on March 16, filed by a man challenging a family court order granting maintenance to his wife and kids in December 2022, observed that a husband cannot evade his legal obligation to provide maintenance to his estranged wife and children by opting for voluntary retirement from service. The court ruled that financial responsibility towards one’s family continues, irrespective of employment status.Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the verdict on March 16, 2026, and dismissed the man’s petition thereafter. [caption id="attachment_1319" align="alignnone" width="1200"]
Representative image[/caption]Court upholds maintenance order
Notably, a family court had earlier directed the petitioner to pay as much as Rs 8,300 per month each to his wife and children. After his son turned an adult in March 2021, the maintenance was revised to Rs 10,000 per month each for his wife and daughter. Moreover, the order included a 10% rise every two years and Rs 11,000 towards litigation expenses.
However, the petitioner contended that he had taken voluntary retirement from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was making both his ends meet with his pension, as well as limited income gained due to agriculture. He also claimed that his estranged wife was not entitled to maintenance, as she chose to part ways and also earned rental income.
Delhi HC ruling maintenance: Court junks claims
The High Court denied the petitioner’s arguments, noting that the couple had been living apart since 2013, and the wife had alleged constant cruelty by her husband. It ruled that her decision to live separately was justifiable and thus, did not disentitle her from maintenance.
[caption id="attachment_1320" align="alignnone" width="1200"]
Representative image[/caption]Shedding light on the issue of income, the HC observed that voluntary retirement cannot be used as a shield to avoid financial obligations. The bench remarked that well-qualified individuals often attempt to reduce their income to evade maintenance payments, a claim that the court found implausible in this particular case. The court thereafter dismissed the claim regarding the wife’s rental income, noting that she receives a meagre sum of Rs 2,500-Rs 3,000 per month. While the High Court identified a minor error in the family court’s order concerning financial support to the petitioner’s mother, it refused to meddle with the overall maintenance award, leading to the dismissal of the plea. Also read: “No need to rope in entire family,” rules MP HC while hearing dowry harassment case against man