Blog

An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of VISHAL KUMAR vs. SMT. SONAM KHALOTRA [CRL.M.C. 3500/2021] on 25.01.2022.

The facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at Jammu. The petitioner was working in Hyderabad and, thereafter, the parties were staying in Hyderabad. The material on record discloses that some differences arose between the parties. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent resided separately since the year 2018. The respondent herein filed an application praying for protection orders. In the said application, the respondent also prayed for interim maintenance.

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Mahila Court for fixing the interim maintenance in favour of the respondent u/s 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for a sum of Rs.25,000 per month which includes monthly expenditure, rent allowance, medical expenses, travel expenses etc.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner lost his job and that the petitioner is unemployed and living with his parents at Jammu whereas the respondent is a practising Doctor at a clinic in New Delhi. He further stated that there is nothing on record on the basis of which the learned MM could come to the conclusion that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.80,000 per month.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, Court was of the opinion that there is no perversity in approach of Appellate Court as it has given valid and cogent reasons. An interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.25,000 was fixed and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The Court observed that contention of the petitioner that he was not appointed to the post of Panchayat Accounts Assistant only because of the complaint of the respondent has not been substantiated in fact there is nothing on record which would indicate that factor and it is only ipse dixit of the petitioner. The Court held that “an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family”.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman