Facts
The petitioner, Ankush Kumar Parashar was married to respondent no. 1 Sapna @ Mona on 2nd July, 2017 as per Hindu rites. A son, Master Madhav (respondent no. 2) was born from the said matrimonial relation on 13th June 2018. Disputes broke between the parties, and thereafter the appellant/complainant was forced to leave the matrimonial home in April, 2018 without any justified reason.
The petitioner alleged that he was deprived of love and affection by his son and that Sapna and her relations were preventing him to meet his son and that he was being asked by them to live near their parental house and not to contact his parents. Ankush also accused Sapna of publicly humiliating him and issuing threats. Sapna, on the other hand claimed that maltreatment, oppression, demand of dowry and attempts at abortion on her by the family made her leave the matrimonial house.
Then Sapna filed for maintenance under section 125 CrPC in November 2019. The interim maintenance in the first instance was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per month but was further reduced to Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Family Court by order dated 30th April 2024, decided the petition and directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month to Sapna and child.
Issues
- Whether award of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 25,000/- to the estranged wife and child by the Family Court was justified.
- Whether the liability of the husband towards his parents and home loan was adequately taken into consideration in awarding the maintenance pendente lite.
- Whether one or both parties neglected to perform their duties towards the child viz a viz the child, Master Madhav.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973: Deals with maintenance of wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
- Judicial development of equitable balance between rights of dependents and the bona fide financial obligations of the payor spouse.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner submitted that the maintenance, as awarded, did not factor in his huge financial liabilities, such as payment of the home loan EMIs and his responsibility towards his parents.
- Ankush claimed Sapna left on her own and was educated enough to fend for herself.
- The amount of maintenance, he submitted, was artificially high according to his net disposable income, and stressed it should also be realistic so as not to deplete his means or threaten his statutory liabilities.
- Ankush also wanted liberal visitation of Master Madhav, stating that it has resulted in his emotional deprivation from his son.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Sapna denied Ankush’s version of events, accusing him of domestic violence, torture, dowry demand and forcing her to get an abortion.
- According to her, the constant ill-treatment forced her to leave and her claim for maintenance was justified.
- Sapna contended that Ankush’s authentic income was higher than the one scheduled and his share in the expenditure on his parents was exaggerated.
- She further highlighted her inability of making any income on account of looking after the children and lack of any regular income
Analysis
The court carefully weighed up the two parties’ respective financial positions and allegations, warming the quantum of maintenance in rewarding the statutory right and recognising real-life responsibilities. The petitioner, Ankush, established his claim of straitened circumstances by filing salary slips and bank statements, which clearly showed his net take-home to be much lesser than the respondent’s contention. Ankush’s fixed dues included a large home loan EMI and regular expenses for the upkeep of his parents—being aged—which went ignored by the Family Court earlier. The Court also recognized that maintenance should not be to the extent as it cripples the husband and makes him unable to maintain his parents who are dependent on him under the law, financially.
The Court also examined Sapna’s claim that she was coerced to leave the matrimonial home after being harassed and beaten. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that certain allegations of domestic violence and dowry demand remained uncontroverted in the course of proceedings which “tilts the balance in favour of the disclosure of this fact that it is not complete voluntary or Sans Karar departure of Sapna from the matrimonial household; leaving it without just cause.” But the court also observed that Sapna is a commerce graduate and had previously done tailoring work — a fact that is relevant when it comes to considering her possible future financial autonomy.
The ruling reiterated a well-established principle in matrimonial law: that maintenance relief is intended to provide dignity and a decent standard of living for those left by the wayside, rather than to penalize the supporting spouse or enrich the dependent. The High Court emphasised that the maintenance order had to be constructed bearing in mind that husband must maintain wife on the basis of his realistic earning capacity, priorities, and obligations and his genuine and basic needs before taking into consideration the requirements of the spouse for her own realistic need including her own employability. In balancing these dual considerations, the maintenance was recalibrated to Rs. 17,500 per month – the township the Court found reasonable, affordable keeping in mind statutory intent and equitable justice.
Judgment
- The Court reduced the maintenance award from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,500/- per month, finding this to be a fair and “balanced approach” to the facts presented.
- The Court recognized Ankush’s rights and visitation requests, while underscoring Sapna’s obligation to facilitate routine contact between father and son, in the best interests of Master Madhav.
- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded that the original order required modification to reflect the genuine financial position of Ankush, thereby ensuring the maintenance is neither excessive nor inadequate for the welfare of dependents.
Conclusion
In the matter of Ankush Kumar Parashar v. Sapna @ Mona and Master Madhav it has been held that though, maintenance to the wife and the child is on statute books, the amount has to be quantified taking into account the real financial liability and burden on the paying spouse on the basis of avowed principles of notional income. The Delhi High Court while decreasing the maintenance from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 17,500/- per month took about the rights of both the spouses and the real interest of the child and thus interpreted the law in a pragmatic as well as concomitant manner to serve as a general guideline in the adjudication of maintenance.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Stuti Vineet
For readming more please refer: Ankush vs sapna & anr.
