‘Custody of one child doesn’t absolve husband of maintenance duties for wife’: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court ruled that a husband's maintenance duty to his wife continues even if he has custody of one child, reducing interim support from ₹20,000 to ₹17,500.

The Delhi High Court ordered that custody of one child with the wife does not absolve the husband of the maintenance duties when the wife does not have an independent source of income.

(Shutterstock)

In the 15-page ruling, thebench of justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, said that maintenance obligations do not get divided merely because each parent has custody of one child and the fact can be considered while fixing the maintenance amount.

“The mere fact that one child is in the custody of the petitioner (husband) cannot, by itself, be a ground to absolve him of his obligation to maintain respondent no.1 (wife) and the minor child residing with her. The responsibility of maintenance does not stand divided merely because each parent has custody of one child,” justice Sharma said in her ruling delivered on Monday and released Friday.

She added, “If the wife is not working and has no independent source of income, the husband continues to be under a legal obligation to provide maintenance to the wife and the minor child in her custody, irrespective of whether the other child is residing with him.”

The court was dealing with the man’s petition against the family court’s October 2023 order directing him to provide ₹20,000 as interim maintenance to his wife and a minor daughter. The bench has, however, reduced the maintenance amount from ₹20,000 to ₹17,500.

The couple has two children and began living separately due to marital discord. Following their separation, the son remained in the father’s custody, while the daughter started living with the mother. The woman subsequently filed an application seeking maintenance, following which the family court had directed the man to pay ₹20,000 as interim maintenance.

In his petition before the high court, the man argued that since both he and his wife were shouldering parental responsibilities, the interim maintenance was excessive and unreasonable. He added that his wife was running a beauty parlour and had a regular source of income.

In the woman’s response to the petition, she said that she and her minor daughter were facing financial hardship due to rising expenses on education, rent, medical care, and daily household needs, and that she alone was bearing the entire responsibility for her daughter’s upbringing and care.