The Uttarakhand High Court has firmly dismissed a petition filed by a man from Udham Singh Nagar, who was challenging a family court's directive to provide interim maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to his wife. The court underscored a fundamental legal principle, highlighting the clear distinction between a person's capacity to earn and their actual earnings, especially during preliminary proceedings.
Court Rejects Husband's Arguments on Wife's Employability
The case originated when the wife approached the family court seeking financial support. She alleged that she and her minor child faced cruelty and harassment, forcing her to leave the marital home. She stated she had no independent income to support herself or the child, while claiming her husband, an advocate, had a substantial income but neglected his duties.
The husband contested these claims, arguing that he was only a junior advocate with a negligible income, suffered from cardiac issues, and was dependent on others for his treatment and livelihood. His counsel further contended that the wife was well-educated, employed before marriage, and possibly still engaged with a financial institution. He alleged the family court failed to properly assess his financial situation and arbitrarily fixed a notional income to grant maintenance.
HC Upholds Family Court's Balanced Approach
Justice Ashish Naithani, presiding over the single bench, meticulously examined the arguments. The High Court observed a critical flaw in the husband's petition: while he alleged his wife was capable of earning, he failed to provide the family court with any convincing documentary evidence proving she was actually receiving a regular income sufficient for her and the child's upkeep at the relevant time.
The court noted that the family court rightly considered this lack of proof and concluded that interim maintenance could not be denied based merely on assertions about educational qualifications or alleged earning potential.
Denying the husband's revision plea, the HC stated that the awarded amount of Rs 5,000 per month was modest. "It cannot be characterised as excessive, arbitrary, or disproportionate so as to warrant interference in revision," the bench said. It added that the family court's order reflected a fair attempt to balance the genuine needs of the wife and child against the financial constraints pleaded by the husband.
Legal Precedent on Income vs. Earning Capacity Strengthened
The Uttarakhand High Court's ruling reinforces a significant legal standpoint in maintenance matters. The judgment clarifies that at an interlocutory stage, the focus is on actual income and immediate need rather than speculative earning capacity. The additional government advocate, supporting the family court's order, successfully argued that no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error was demonstrated to justify high court intervention under its revisional powers.
This decision serves as a crucial reminder that claims of a spouse's employability must be backed by solid evidence to influence interim maintenance orders. The court's dismissal solidifies the wife's position and ensures continued financial support for her and the minor child as the larger legal proceedings continue.
