June 14, 2019
The Delhi High Court in view of the fact that that there is no other dependant member of the respondent apart from the petitioner, awarded maintenance to the tune of 30% of husband’s gross income.
Case name: Babita Bisht vs Dharmender Singh Bisht
In the present case, the Petitioner has challenged quantum of maintenance awarded by the Trial Court, Court has reduced the maintenance being given to the petitioner from 30% of the gross income of the
The Petitioner contended that the Trial Court while reducing the quantum of maintenance has not given any reason.
The High Court of Delhi passed the order in favour of the Petitioner wife and noted that there is no other dependant member of the respondent apart from the petitioner. In case the formula of apportionment is applied, respondent would be entitled to retain two parts of his income after making the mandatory statutory deductions and one part of the same would be payable to the wife.
The Court also opined that there was no rationale based on which the Trial Court reduced the percentage of maintenance from 30% to 15%.
The High Court while arriving at it’s decision also relied on Supreme Court judgments in the case of Supreme Court in Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, wherein it has been held that it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court held in the instant case that the impugned order to the extent that it awards maintenance at 15% of the gross salary after deduction of minimum statutory legal deductions is not sustainable. The order is, accordingly, modified to the extent that petitioner is held entitled to 30% of the gross income of the respondent after the minimum statutory deductions.
The entire case can be accessed here.