In a strong reaffirmation of the right to timely financial support, the Delhi High Court has observed that any delay in disbursing maintenance to a dependent spouse or child undermines their dignity, subsistence, and security. The Court held that “financial support delayed is dignity denied,” emphasizing that even a day’s lapse defeats the very object of maintenance.
The observation came from Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was hearing a husband’s challenge to an interim maintenance order passed by a Family Court in favour of his estranged wife and minor child.
“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse,” Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked. “Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support.”
The Court made it clear that maintenance is not merely a monetary obligation, but a legal and moral duty designed to protect the dignity and stability of the dependent spouse and child.
“The very object of maintenance under the statutory framework is to ensure financial stability and a sense of security for the dependent spouse and child,” Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated. “Maintenance is intended to safeguard their right to live with dignity and meet basic expenses such as food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education. It is not a benevolence or charity to be delayed at the convenience of the earning spouse.”
In the matter before the Court, the husband had assailed a Family Court order that directed him to pay a monthly sum of ₹45,000 as interim maintenance—₹22,500 to the wife and ₹22,500 to the minor child.
However, Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma found no merit in the husband’s arguments. The Court noted that he had not placed on record any material to demonstrate that the wife had any independent income or financial support. No affidavit, employment details, or income proof had been filed to suggest that she was engaged in gainful employment or had sufficient resources of her own.
Further, the husband’s claim that his aged parents were financially dependent on him was also found to be unsupported by any documentary evidence.
The Court also took into consideration that the husband was paying EMIs towards his ancestral house but held that such financial liabilities could not take precedence over statutory obligations.
“The statutory right of the wife and child to receive maintenance cannot be defeated on account of EMIs that the husband is paying towards any property,” Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
In poignant language, the Court highlighted the contrasting realities faced by the parties:
“This Court notes that while the petitioner (husband) continues to sleep in peace, secure in the knowledge of his regular income and resources, the respondent (wife) suffers in silence, grappling with uncertainty and anxiety about how she will meet her basic needs if maintenance is not paid in a timely manner,” said Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The Court emphasized that the hardship endured by a dependent spouse or child due to delays in maintenance is not confined to the quantum of arrears, but lies in the immediate distress caused by financial deprivation.
“Even a day's uncertainty over basic expenses causes distress and hardship to the wife, who is entirely dependent on the maintenance for her survival and for providing for the minor child,” Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted.
While upholding the principle of timely and adequate maintenance, the Court partially modified the impugned Family Court order. It directed that the wife would continue to receive ₹22,500 per month as interim maintenance, and the amount for the minor child would be revised to ₹17,500 per month.
Through this judgment, Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has powerfully reiterated that maintenance is not a matter of charity or discretion—it is a right rooted in law and human dignity. The ruling is a timely reminder that the financial survival and emotional well-being of dependent spouses and children must not be subject to delay or neglect.