The Delhi High Court in the case observed and has stated that if the wife starts working to supplement daily expenditure for herself and the child due to financial crunch, thus, it is not the ground to reduce maintenance payable to her by her husband.
The court in the case observed and has dismissed the appeal moved by the husband wherein challenging the order of the family court refusing to modify the monthly maintenance for an amount of Rs. 8,000 to the wife and Rs. 3,000 for the minor child.
The court observed that even though the interim maintenance has been granted, the appellant is in arrears of about Rs. 4,67,000/- and the appellant or husband has not been making payment of interim maintenance. Therefore, faced such a financial crunch, if the respondent i.e., the wife has started working and generated some source of income which is admittedly about Rs. 10,000/- per month to supplement day-to-day expenditure of herself and the daughter and the same cannot be considered as the ground to reduce the maintenance.
In the present case, the husband seeks the reduction in maintenance amount on the ground that his earnings were reduced due to COVID-19 pandemic and that the wife had started earning. It has also been claimed by him that the wife had concealed the fact of her employment and earnings.
The court in the case observed that the efforts of the respondent to meet her expenses by creating some source of income in the sum of Rs.6,000 to Rs.10,000/- where the husband has failed to discharge his obligations of paying the maintenance and is in arrears of more than an amount of Rs.4,67,000/-, cannot be considered as a reason to modify or reduce the interim maintenance.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
The counsel, Advocate Mohd. Faisal appeared for the appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Abhay Mani Tripathi and Advocate Hemant Gulati represented the respondent.