Bitterness in the litigation serves nobody's purpose, the judge said.
Denying maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence even from a humanitarian perspective, the Delhi High Court has said.
Justice Asha Menon observed that husbands forcing wives to file execution petitions in order to delay payment is a "sad truth" and "it behoves no husband or a father to deny a fair standard of living for a wife who is a homemaker and their child of tender age".
The judge made the remarks while dismissing with costs of Rs 20,000 a challenge by the petitioner's husband to the family court's order directing him to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs 20,000 to his wife and child.
The petitioner wanted the family court's order overruled on the ground that his expenditure was around Rs 25,000 on a salary of Rs 28,000 and was therefore willing to pay Rs 4,000 per month to the wife.
The court noted that the "malafide intentions" of an estranged husband are to depress his income for the sadistic pleasure of seeing the agony of the dependent wife, which may be dictated by the egoistic propensity to possibly teach her a lesson for not falling in line with his dictates.
The court thus called for a "change in the attitude" and said that bitterness in the litigation serves nobody's purpose.
"To deny maintenance to an estranged wife and child is the worst offence, even from a humanitarian perspective. Yet, it is a sad truth that husbands force their wives to file execution petitions to delay payments, even after a court of law has determined her entitlement, albeit, even if as an interim measure," the court said in its order dated July 18.
"The malafide intentions of an estranged husband is to depress his income as much as possible, for sadistic pleasure, of seeing the agony of someone, who has no choice, but to be dependent on him, maybe dictated by egoistic propensity to also possibly teach his wife a lesson for not falling in line with whatever be his dictates. Matrimonial relationships can come to an end for a variety of reasons including ego clashes. It is time that there is a change in the attitude when litigation is filed by one spouse against the other. To introduce bitterness in the litigation serves nobody's purpose," the court added.
The court reminded that the setup of family courts, counselling centres, and the option of mediation aim for a "more amiable and less torturous resolution of matrimonial and family problems" and that the legal fraternity must encourage quick resolution by these methods as their role would be of immeasurable value in rescuing lives from the brink of ruination and annihilation.
The court stated that in the present case, the petitioner's income affidavit and the bank account statement were filed at a time when COVID-19 was waning and economic activity had picked up with no lockdown and the claim of a dip in the income due to the pandemic was not credible.
The court also noted that it was apparent on the face of the record that the petitioner inflated his expenditure, including Rs 10,000 per month for his aged parents who were admittedly living in their residence.
"The petitioner owns a Hyundai EON car and a smartphone of Samsung. Yet, he wishes to peg the maintenance of the respondent to Rs.4,000 (before this Court Rs 5,000) i.e., less than half of the sum he allegedly spends on his old parents. A growing child and a mother who is taking care of all the needs of such a growing child are to somehow manage with Rs.4,000, whereas, the petitioner and his parents can have a greatly enhanced level of comfort by spending Rs.25,000 to Rs.28,000 on themselves. This attitude is shameful, to say the least," the court observed.
"The present petition is an abuse of the process of court... The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000 to be paid to respondent No.1 before the learned Family Court on the next date of hearing fixed before it," the court ordered.