X v. Y, 2025

The wife was granted interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month by the trial court.

The husband challenged this order, claiming he was financially incapable of paying and arguing that the wife possessed sufficient means from stridhan, inherited property, or gifts from her family.

The husband also claimed unemployment and presented documents relating to sale of inherited assets and maturity of fixed deposits to dispute his obligation.

The Court had to determine whether these factors affected the wife’s right to receive maintenance and what constituted the husband’s actual financial capacity.

Whether stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a wife from her parents or relatives can be considered her income to deny or reduce her claim for maintenance?

How maintenance should be calculated in reference to a wife’s earning capacity and actual income?

Whether the husband’s financial capacity should include all sources of income, including profits from family businesses?

Whether maintenance should be adjusted to the wife’s standard of living during marriage, rather than based on arithmetic or theoretical calculations?

The Court held that stridhan, inherited property, or gifts from the wife’s natal family cannot be treated as her income for the purpose of maintenance.

Maintenance must be assessed based on a wife’s present earning capacity and actual financial resources, not her potential or theoretical ability to earn.

The Court emphasized that the husband is presumed capable of earning enough to maintain his dependents and must present credible evidence if claiming inability to pay.

The Court considered the husband’s lifestyle and all sources of his income, including profits, dividends, or benefits from family businesses, when assessing his capacity to pay.

It was observed that documents relating to isolated transactions or inherited assets of the wife do not constitute a regular source of income sufficient to deny maintenance.

Justice Sharma dismissed the husband’s challenge and upheld the trial court’s order directing Rs. 50,000 monthly interim maintenance to the wife.

The ruling emphasizes the principle that maintenance should preserve the reasonable standard of living enjoyed during marriage, rather than arbitrarily reducing it due to theoretical financial independence.

The Court clarified that all sources of husband’s income, whether from employment, business, or other ventures, are relevant when determining maintenance.

This decision safeguards women against attempts to undermine maintenance claims by relying on stridhan or gifts and promotes a practical and equitable approach under Section 125 CrPC.