Representative image.

NEW DELHI: In a significant order, a husband’s plea against an order of paying Rs 1.40 lakh maintenance to his estranged wife has been dismissed by a court on the ground that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and it has to be put on a higher pedestal. The court ruled that even if the wife is employed, she is entitled for the status and standard of living which she used to enjoy at her matrimonial home .

In his views, additional sessions judge Suresh Kumar Gupta noted that a wife is deprived of many comforts after she leaves the matrimonial home. “Sometimes, she loses interest in life. The monetary comfort from her husband gives her some solace. She might be living in her parental house but even then she has to incur some expenses. She has to constantly look after the child by performing her duties day and night. She does not get that support which she would have got in case she had been residing in the matrimonial home,” observed the court.

The amount was passed on June 22, 2015, by the trial court which directed the husband to pay Rs 1 lakh to the wife and Rs 40,000 towards the maintenance of their minor child. Advocate Prashant Mendiratta, who appeared for the wife, relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that even if the wife is earning, it did not deprive her from claiming maintenance from her husband.

The couple married in India, but subsequently moved to Singapore. Following differences, the woman accused her husband of domestic violence and returned to India in June, 2011. Contesting the maintenance claim, the man argued that his wife was a postgraduate degree holder in business administration. It made her highly qualified and capable of earning more than him, it was argued. Another submission showed that after their divorce took place on September 1, 2014, following which the maintenance to the wife was denied by a Singapore court, but that order was not considered by the trial court back here.

The man also argued that the cost of living in Singapore was double than that of Delhi. A huge chunk of his salary, he pointed out, went in taking care of his daily needs. He even gave a break up of his expenditure and financial liabilities. For the court, however, the argument did not hold water. “The appellant has failed to show his actual expenditure in dollars in Singapore so his salary in dollars can be taken into consideration for the grant of interim maintenance,” it said.

It added that the wife was entitled to a life style similar to that which she enjoyed at her matrimonial home. Recording that the income of the husband was far more than that of the woman, the court pointed out that she had been looking after their child ever since she left him. "The child also needs the same standard which he has enjoyed with his father or would have enjoyed if stayed with him. The income of the respondent is not enough to maintain that standard of life which she along with child has enjoyed in the matrimonial home," asserted the court.

