Delhi High Court Rules on Maintenance Calculations for Spouses

The Delhi High Court has issued a significant ruling regarding the calculation of maintenance payments, stating that a husband’s foreign earnings cannot be automatically converted into Indian currency for the purposes of determining support for his wife. Justice Amit Mahajan highlighted that simply earning in a foreign currency does not guarantee entitlement to maintenance without considering the specific circumstances surrounding the case.

This ruling arose from a dispute between a couple challenging a family court's order which mandated that the husband pay ₹50,000 per month in interim maintenance. The wife argued that her husband, an employee at Amazon, earned an annual salary of $150,300, which had increased to $232,000, translating to approximately ₹14,61,000 each month. She claimed that she had no income as she left her job in December 2021 and that her husband had no dependants besides her.

Conversely, the husband asserted that the wife was highly qualified and previously worked at Bank of America, earning ₹9,00,000 annually. He contended that she had chosen to leave her job intentionally.

In its judgement, the High Court found the interim maintenance amount of ₹50,000 to be insufficient when considering the husband’s earning capacity and the lifestyle to which the couple was accustomed. The court stated, "Determining interim maintenance does not lend itself to strict mathematical calculations. It often requires estimation and informed guesswork, particularly when one spouse earns abroad and does not fully disclose their income."

The court further noted that while a husband has a responsibility to provide for his wife, this obligation does not mean that his entire income should be reflected in the maintenance amount awarded. The judge subsequently increased the interim maintenance to ₹1,00,000 per month, effective from the date of the initial application, subject to any adjustments for payments already made.

This ruling highlights the importance of considering the overall financial circumstances and lifestyle indicators when determining maintenance payments in cases involving international earnings. Legal experts suggest that this judgement may set a precedent for future cases where foreign income is a factor in maintenance disputes.

The decision reflects a broader trend in the judiciary to assess maintenance claims in a manner that balances the responsibilities of spouses with the realities of their financial capabilities. It underscores the necessity for transparency in income disclosure, particularly in matrimonial disputes where one party's earnings may not be straightforwardly documented.

As the legal landscape surrounding maintenance continues to evolve, this ruling may influence how courts approach similar cases, ensuring that maintenance amounts are fair and reflective of actual circumstances rather than rigid formulas. The implications of this judgement could resonate across various cases, prompting a reevaluation of how maintenance obligations are determined in the context of international earnings.