The husband said his salary hasn't grown since his job began and claimed to earn just Rs 11,000 a month despite a UK hospitality degree, but Delhi HC wasn't convinced. The court ruled that the maintenance paid to wife and son must rise 5% annually to beat inflation, rejecting a husband's claim of limited income.
The Delhi High Court recently upheld a family court order directing a 5% annual increase in the wife’s maintenance amount, citing inflation and rising cost of living. The husband has been ordered to pay Rs 25,000 monthly to his wife and minor son, with a yearly increase of 5%.
“It is a matter of judicial notice that the cost of living and inflation increase with the passage of time, resulting in a gradual erosion of the real value of a fixed maintenance amount,” the Delhi HC said in a recent order.
In this case, the husband approached the Delhi HC, challenging a 2020 family court order contending that the court erred in assessing his income and earning capacity, wrongly awarded excessive maintenance, and acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing an automatic annual enhancement of 5% in the amount.
As per the facts of the case, the couple got married in December 2012 and became parents to a son in September 2013. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose, and the wife claimed that she was subject to cruelty and dowry demands by the husband and his family.
She was ultimately forced to leave the matrimonial home. The wife lodged a complaint before the CAW Cell in November 2014 and started residing with her parents.
The husband denied the allegations and argued that they have been living separately since November 2013. He further disputed the allegations regarding his income and assets and asserted that the wife suppressed facts regarding the maintenance awarded to her and her independent source of income.
He claimed to be earning Rs 11,000 per month even after completing a Hospitality Management course from Edinburgh, Scotland. The husband further stated that he is “merely an average employee whose salary has not increased since employment.”
In the submissions made to the Delhi HC, the counsel for the husband submitted that he is a graduate in Hospitality Management and is presently working as a cook in India. It was further contended that the properties relied upon by the wife belong to the husband’s father and not to him.
Moreover, the said properties are small residential units accommodating the entire family and do not generate any rental income for the husband. With this, the husband’s counsel stated that he does not own any immovable property and is himself residing in a rented accommodation.
“The minor child was admitted to school under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, which itself demonstrates the petitioner's (husband’s) limited financial means,” the petition added.
Counsel from the wife’s side submitted that an execution petition for recovery of maintenance arrears amounting to approximately Rs 7 lakh for 2023-24 and 2024-25 is presently pending before the trial Court.
The wife had also led evidence to establish the financial status of the husband’s family, including expenditure incurred by her parents at the time of marriage, the gifts made to the husband, the expenses borne towards his education abroad, medical expenses, and the educational needs of the minor child.
In its findings, the Delhi HC found that the wife’s evidence regarding her financial dependence, the child’s educational expenses and the husband’s financial position had remained substantially unrebutted. Despite repeated opportunities, the husband had failed to cross-examine her.
Therefore, the family court was justified in drawing appropriate conclusions from the evidence available on record, it stated. The High Court also dismissed the husband’s claim that his earning capacity was limited to Rs 11,000 per month.
“The petitioner (husband) admittedly possesses a degree in Hospitality Management from Edinburgh Napier University, Scotland, obtained after the marriage, and failed to produce any cogent material to establish that his earning capacity was restricted to the income claimed by him,” the Delhi HC said.
Moreover, the husband could not satisfactorily explain several aspects relating to his financial affairs and family background.
Despite his claims of earning just Rs 11,000 per month, the husband has been directed to pay Rs 15,000 per month to the wife and Rs 10,000 per month to the minor son, together with an annual increase of 5%.
On the automatic 5% annual enhancement in maintenance, the High Court explained that maintenance is meant to help the wife and child live with dignity and maintain the standard of living they had during the marriage.
Citing the rising cost of living and inflation, the court held that a reasonable yearly increase protects the effectiveness of the maintenance order.
