Man not exempt from child support if wife financially stable: Delhi HC

A man cannot be exempted from financially supporting his child simply because his wife has the potential to provide for the child, the Delhi high court ruled in a recent judgment. Upholding a city court’s order, the high court directed the father to pay maintenance to his son until he graduates or begins earning, asserting that maintenance ensures a dignified existence, not mere survival.

“The duty of the husband to provide for his child persists regardless of any purported grievances. It is trite that mere potential of the wife to provide for the child, is not sufficient to exempt the petitioner/husband, who is an able-bodied man, from financially supporting his child,” a bench of justice Amit Mahajan stated in the December 17 ruling, released later.

The bench added: “The purpose of maintenance is to ensure the financial sustenance of the dependent spouse or child, while balancing the earning capacity of the abled party. Maintenance is not merely for survival, but is aimed at ensuring a dignified existence, consistent with the standard of living enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage.”

The judgment arose from a man’s plea challenging a city court’s October 2021 decision requiring him to pay ₹25,000 monthly maintenance for his child until the child completes graduation or starts earning. The lower court had also directed him to pay ₹10,00,000 as compensation to his wife and secure her future right of residence.

The husband’s counsel, advocate Shweta Bari, had argued that the verdict was ex-facie perverse, harsh and was passed without appreciating the fact that no case of domestic violence was made out against him in the evidence placed before it. She contended that the financial burden was unsustainable and claimed the responsibility of maintaining the child should also consider the wife’s earning potential. Bari further asserted that paying maintenance to a child beyond the age of majority was contrary to law.

The wife, represented by advocate Astha Deep, countered that the husband had failed to provide for her and their minor child while subjecting her to physical, emotional, and financial exploitation.

The high court dismissed the husband’s arguments, reaffirming that the father’s responsibility to support his child is paramount and cannot be evaded.