The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling distinguishing between a spouse's earning capacity and their actual income when determining interim maintenance. The court upheld an interim maintenance award of ₹1 lakh per month for a professionally qualified wife, emphasizing that the potential to earn cannot be equated with current earnings. However, it also adjusted the husband's future liability downwards after his employment termination.
Court Upholds Past Maintenance, Adjusts Future Payments
Justice Madhu Jain, presiding over the case, refused to nullify the previous award for the period when the estranged husband, a former Air India employee, received a substantial salary. The court affirmed the appellate order from October 2021, which sustained a trial court directive for the husband to pay ₹1 lakh monthly from the date the domestic violence complaint was filed. This decision came despite the husband's plea for a downward revision and the wife's counter-demand for an increase to ₹3.38 lakh per month.
Recognizing a change in the husband's financial circumstances after his service with Air India ended, the court prospectively reduced his ongoing maintenance obligation to ₹15,000 per month. The husband's salary ceased in November 2020, and he was officially terminated in April 2022.
Earning Capacity vs. Actual Earnings
In its July 30 order, the court clarified the legal line between a spouse's qualifications and their actual financial reality. While courts possess the discretion to encourage professionally qualified spouses to seek suitable employment, such a directive does not automatically strip them of their right to financial support.
"A professionally qualified spouse may be required to make bona fide efforts towards securing suitable employment. Such a direction is neither beyond the jurisdiction nor outside the discretion of the court. However, the capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings," the court stated.
The judge further stressed that a subsequent decrease in income does not invalidate a past maintenance order from its inception. Instead, it "may, however, require a prospective adjustment of the subsisting liability," allowing for flexibility in future payments based on changed circumstances.
Details of the Legal Battle
The ruling resolved cross-revision petitions filed by both spouses. The couple married in May 2010 under Hindu rites and separated in January 2019. Following the separation, the wife lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance for herself and their minor son, who currently resides with the husband.
The maintenance figure evolved from an initial ₹35,000 per month awarded in May 2019 to ₹1 lakh per month in September 2020, with the higher amount backdated to the complaint filing. This increase was based on salary records indicating the husband earned approximately ₹4-5 lakh monthly.
The husband's counsels argued that the maintenance order relied on an inaccurate assessment of his earnings, noting he was pulled off flying duties in September 2019 and received no pay for July 2020. They also highlighted the wife's BTech degree in telecommunications and her continued residence in a flat owned by the husband. The court noted that expenses for the minor son, who lives with and is supported by the father, could not be included in the wife’s individual maintenance needs.
The wife, appearing in person, accused the husband of concealing wealth and ignoring previous payment orders, arguing that ₹1 lakh was insufficient given his Form-16 disclosures and their marital lifestyle. However, the High Court found no basis to increase the amount for the period the husband earned a substantial salary, ultimately rejecting her plea for an enhancement before adjusting his future obligations.