Husband can’t evade duty to maintain family: Delhi Court

A Delhi court has upheld an interim maintenance order directing a man to pay Rs 7,500 per month to his estranged wife and minor daughter in a domestic violence case, saying that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his legal obligation to maintain his family by concealing his income.

Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan dismissed the husband’s appeal against a trial court order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“I am of the considered view that it is for the appellant/husband to manage his expenses and merely giving the details of expenses by him and the ground that he has the responsibility of his mother does not absolve him from maintaining his legally wedded wife,” the court said.

The appeal was filed by Pradeep Kumar, a resident of Faridabad, challenging a December 23, 2025, order directing him to pay Rs 7,500 monthly maintenance to his wife Priya.

According to court records, the woman alleged that she was subjected to dowry harassment, domestic violence and cruelty after their marriage in January 2020.

She alleged that her in-laws were dissatisfied with the dowry articles and demanded a Toyota Fortuner car.

The woman also alleged that her husband and in-laws pressured her to undergo gender determination tests and wanted the pregnancy terminated if the child was a female.

The husband denied all allegations and contended before the appellate court that he was unemployed, dependent on his father and earning barely Rs 10,000 per month through the sale of milk from buffaloes. He also claimed that his wife was residing in a four-storey parental house and was earning substantial rental income.

Rejecting the contentions, the court noted that the husband had failed to place any documentary proof regarding his income, liabilities or the alleged earnings of the complainant.

“At the stage of interim relief, a detailed trial or roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact is neither required nor permissible,” the court said.

The judge said that the wife’s educational qualifications alone could not be a ground to deny maintenance in the absence of proof of gainful employment.

The court reiterated that the purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure that a dependent spouse can live with dignity during the pendency of proceedings.

Finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial court order, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the maintenance award.