Delaying financial support to spouse, kid akin to denying dignity: Delhi HC

Saying the delay in extending financial support to an estranged spouse and child was akin to denying dignity, the Delhi High Court has ordered a man to pay interim maintenance in a matrimonial case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing the man's plea against the family court's direction to pay a monthly sum of Rs 45,000 (Rs 22,500 each towards the interim maintenance of his estranged wife and minor daughter).

''Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,'' the July 1 verdict read.

The court further underlined that maintenance was not merely a monetary obligation but a legal and moral duty designed to preserve the dignity and security of the dependent spouse and child.

''When financial support is delayed, dignity is the first casualty... The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse,'' it added.

The court, however, brought down the amount towards his daughter to Rs 17,500 a month while retaining the amount towards his wife.

While man's counsel argued that his client was left with only a month's payment of the outstanding maintenance, indicating no deliberate or substantial default on his part, the amicus curiae representing the woman said even a single day's delay had a profound impact on the wife, who was struggling to maintained herself and the minor child.

While the husband continued to sleep in peace, secure in the knowledge of his regular income and resources, the court said, the wife suffered in silence, grappling with uncertainty and anxiety about how she would meet her basic needs if maintenance was not paid in a timely manner.

''While the petitioner (husband) argues that only one month's maintenance is outstanding, the impact of such delay on the respondent cannot be trivialised. The reality is that even a day's uncertainty over basic expenses causes distress and hardship to the respondent, who is entirely dependent on the maintenance for her survival and for providing for the minor child,'' it said.

The court said the wife should not be left to suffer in silence, questioning how her immediate needs would be met while the husband enjoyed financial stability.

''Maintenance is intended to safeguard their right to live with dignity and meet basic expenses such as food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education. It is not a benevolence or charity to be delayed at the convenience of the earning spouse,'' the order said.

The court opined that the legislative intent was to prevent precisely the kind of fear, helplessness, and financial insecurity that the woman had expressed due to such delays.

The husband was stated to have failed to show that the estranged wife had any independent source of income besides proving his claim that his parents were financially dependent on him.

The man had also claimed of paying huge sums of money towards EMI for the construction of his house in his native place.

The court rejected the argument saying the statutory right of the wife and child to receive maintenance couldn't be defeated on account of EMIs being paid by the husband towards any property.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)