The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to further enhance the maintenance granted to a wife and directed that a portion of the maintenance amount be utilised for skill development to enable her to become financially independent.
The order was passed by Justice Alok Jain while dismissing a revision petition filed by the wife against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, by which the maintenance payable to her was enhanced to one-third of the respondent-husband’s net salary, amounting to ₹15,000 per month.
Case Background
The petitioner-wife had approached the Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance. The Family Court enhanced the maintenance from ₹7,500 per month to ₹15,000 per month, calculating it as one-third of the respondent’s net salary.
Aggrieved by the quantum, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court seeking further enhancement.
The grievance raised was that the Family Court ought to have fixed maintenance at one-third of the respondent’s gross salary instead of his net salary.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-husband was earning ₹58,016 per month, as reflected in his salary slip. It was argued that the Family Court erred in taking into account deductions reflected in the salary slip and assessing the take-home salary at approximately ₹45,000 per month.
It was contended that certain deductions were voluntary in nature and should not have been excluded while computing the respondent’s income for the purpose of determining maintenance. On this basis, it was argued that maintenance should have been fixed at one-third of the gross salary.
The petitioner further submitted that maintenance law is a piece of social welfare legislation and must be applied liberally. It was argued that the wife is entitled to enjoy the same standard of living, comfort and amenities as those being enjoyed by the husband.
Court’s Consideration of Income and Expenses
After hearing the submissions, the High Court noted that the petitioner had failed to place any material on record to show an actual increase in her reasonable needs or expenses that were not being met by the maintenance already granted.
The Court observed that a general rise in the cost of living cannot be viewed in isolation. It recorded that such increases are ordinarily accompanied by corresponding revisions in salaries and, therefore, cannot by themselves justify enhancement of maintenance.
The Court found no evidence to suggest that the portion of the respondent’s income awarded as maintenance had not kept pace with inflation or that the petitioner had suffered any financial hardship.
It further held that even if some deductions reflected in the salary slip were voluntary, the same would not materially alter the overall assessment of maintenance in the facts of the case.
Family Court’s Approach to Enhancement
The High Court observed that while the Family Court had enhanced the maintenance amount, it had not discussed or evaluated any evidence produced by the petitioner regarding a change in her expenses.
The Court held that the enhancement appeared to have been granted on a general observation that the cost of living had increased and that ₹7,500 per month was insufficient.
It held that such generalised observations, in the absence of supporting evidence, cannot form the sole basis for enhancement of maintenance.
Observations on Scope of Maintenance Law
The Court observed that the revision petition appeared to be an attempt to seek enhancement beyond what was reasonably justified. It recorded that maintenance law does not operate in isolation from the rights and dignity of the husband.
“The present petition appears to be an attempt to seek an enhancement beyond, what is reasonably justified, which is not the underlying intent of maintenance legislation. The husband is also a human being and a citizen of this country, and is equally entitled to lead a dignified life,”
the Court said.
Trend of Seeking Maintenance Without Cogent Reason
The Court also took note of a growing trend where maintenance is sought without demonstrating a justifiable reason for living separately or a state of destitution.
While reiterating that maintenance aims to ensure dignified living and not mere subsistence, the Court stated that the law mandates maintenance to a wife who is living separately for a just cause and who is unable to maintain herself.
“Although the law mandates that maintenance is to be granted to a wife who is living separately for a just cause and who is in a destitute condition, thereby, unable to maintain herself, however, the Court is equally conscious of the need to enhance the dignity, self-respect and independence of the women,”
the Court observed.
Use of Maintenance for Skill Development
The High Court emphasised that the object of maintenance extends beyond subsistence and includes enabling long-term dignity and self-reliance.
“In matters of maintenance, the object is not merely subsistence but also to enable the claimant to live with dignity, therefore, a part of maintenance amount must be utilized for skills enhancement and self-development so as to promote financial independence and long term self-reliance,”
the Court said.
The Court further held that the petitioner must work towards improving her capabilities so that the purpose of maintenance legislation is fulfilled.
“The petitioner is required to enhance her capabilities and stature in life so as to become self-reliant, only then it would reflect that the true intent of the maintenance legislation has been fulfilled and the maintenance awarded is being utilized in its correct perspective,”
Justice Jain observed.
Final Directions
While dismissing the revision petition seeking further enhancement, the High Court directed that out of the maintenance amount of ₹15,000 per month awarded to the petitioner, she must utilise at least 10% for improving her vocational skills.
“Therefore, this Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner, that out of the maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded to her, she must utilize at least 10% thereof, for improving her vocational skills,”
the Court directed.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Vikas Goyal, Advocate.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
