The Delhi High Court has ruled that pension-receiving parents cannot be treated as 'fully dependent' on their son so as to substantially reduce the maintenance payable to his wife and minor child, according to a report by LiveLaw.
Background of the Case
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while setting aside a family court order which had fixed maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month for the wife and Rs 5,000 per month for the minor daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The family court had assessed the husband's net income at about Rs 50,833 per month after deducting housing loan, vehicle loan, and other liabilities from his gross salary of nearly Rs 1 lakh per month. It further treated the husband's mother as fully dependent upon him and apportioned the income into five shares while calculating the maintenance.
Wife's Argument Before the High Court
The wife argued before the high court that the family court had wrongly reduced the husband's income by considering non-statutory deductions and had also erred in substantially reducing the maintenance amount on the assumption that the husband's mother was fully dependent on him even though she receives a pension. The high court agreed with this contention.
Court's Observations on Dependency
While it is true that a son has a legal and moral obligation to maintain his parents, the extent of such dependency has to be assessed on the basis of the financial position of the parent. Where the parent is receiving a regular pension, the dependency cannot be treated as absolute so as to substantially reduce the share of the wife and minor child. While a husband does have a responsibility towards his aged parents, such responsibility cannot be exaggerated to defeat the legitimate maintenance claims of his wife and child, the court added.
Treatment of Personal Loans and EMIs
The high court also held that repayment of personal loans and EMIs voluntarily undertaken by the earning spouse cannot be treated as permissible deductions so as to dilute the primary obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child. The court further observed that there was no material to show that the wife was actually earning and held that mere earning capacity cannot be a ground to deny or reduce maintenance.
Outcome of the Case
Finding that the family court's approach had resulted in a maintenance amount disproportionate to the husband's admitted gross income of about Rs 1 lakh per month, the high court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh determination of maintenance within a month.
About the Author: TOI Legal Desk. The TOI Legal Desk is a dedicated team of journalists committed to tracking and reporting on courts, legal developments, and judicial proceedings across the country and world.
