5 min readNew DelhiMay 24, 2026 08:44 AM IST
First published on: May 21, 2026 at 02:35 PM IST
Underscoring that a husband cannot avoid maintaining his wife and children by claiming lack of regular income, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a man’s plea against an order passed by a family court, directing him to pay Rs 11,000 per month each to his wife and two daughters.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing the husband’s plea in which he claimed that he suffered from health issues, had a financially dependent mother, and that his wife was educated and capable of earning, but had filed the maintenance case only to harass him.
“It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, even by doing physical labour, and could not avoid his obligation…unable to pay the maintenance on the ground that he has no regular source of income and, therefore, not in a position to pay the maintenance, is not acceptable,” the May 20 order of the Delhi High Court noted.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the husband’s plea challenging the family court’s order directing him to pay maintenance to the wife and children.
The husband had failed to prove that his estranged wife could maintain herself and their two daughters, and that lack of regular income was no excuse to avoid maintenance, the bench added.
Marriage turned sour: Delhi High Court
On June 12, 2006, the petitioner and the respondent married, and two children were born of the wedlock; however, over time, their marriage soured, after which the wife left the matrimonial home and began residing at her parental house with the children.
Thereafter, the estranged wife filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the family court, Shahdra District, which ultimately resulted in the judgment dated October 5, 2024, which had directed the husband to pay Rs 11, 000 to the wife and both daughters.
‘Wife capable of maintaining herself and children’
- Advocate Vijay Kinger, for the petitioner, submitted that the judgment was based on assumptions and the petitioner’s case was not considered.
- It was contended that the wife of the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn from the relationship without any justified reason, even though he had tried to reconcile the differences with her.
- The counsel on behalf of their client submitted that he was working on a contractual basis and did not have any regular income to sustain the maintenance of the respondents.
- Kinger informed the bench that the petitioner was suffering from various health issues, including tuberculosis, diabetes, and heart problems and was also taking care of his elderly dependent mother and paying off loans.
- Describing the wife as a well-qualified and educated woman with a bachelor’s degree in commerce, the counsel argued that she was capable of maintaining herself and had filed the maintenance case only to harass her husband.
‘Can’t reopen already rejected issues’
The Delhi High Court observed that it was on the husband to show that the order suffered from perversity or illegality requiring interference; unless such grounds are made out, the court cannot contradict the family court’s decision.
The court said that the petitioner, being aware that this is not an appeal, under the guise of a revision plea, cannot reopen issues that have been rejected by the family court, or raise new facts that were not placed before.
To raise new issues, the legal remedy available under Section 127 CrPC must be used to file a fresh petition before the same court that passed the order, which he had already, the Delhi High Court noted.
The court observed that the husband had failed to establish the distinction between the two petitions, and hence, he cannot seek relief from this court, especially in its revisional jurisdiction.
‘No illegality in family court’s order’
Advocate Gurinder Pal Singh, for the wife supporting the family court’s judgment, submitted that it was well-reasoned and was passed after considering all the materials on record.
It was stated that there was no illegality in the order that warranted the court’s interference, especially in its revisional jurisdiction.
Singh further argued that the husband’s claims about illness, financial trouble, loan, and responsibilities towards his mother were never mentioned before, and, therefore, these claims could not be entertained for the first time in this revision plea.
Husband unable to raise issues: Delhi High Court
- The Delhi High Court found that the husband had been unable to raise issues which calls for this court’s interference, setting aside or changing the quantum of maintenance granted by the family court.
- The husband had failed to discharge his burden of proving that his wife was capable of maintaining herself and the two daughters residing with her, the court added.
- The Delhi High Court observed that the husband’s case was based on bald assertion without any supporting evidence.
- It’s the husband’s duty to financially support his wife and minor children, even if he has to do physical labour, and therefore, his claim that he could not pay the maintenance due to non-regular income was not acceptable, the Delhi High Court said.
- The court upheld the direction given by the family court to the husband to pay Rs 11,000 to each respondent.
(AI-generated image) 
Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the husband’s plea challenging the family court’s order directing him to pay maintenance to the wife and children.
Share
