Father cannot evade child support citing unemployment: Delhi court
text_fields
New Delhi: A Delhi court has ruled that a husband cannot escape his legal obligation to support his wife and minor child merely by claiming that he is unemployed. The court directed a man to pay Rs 6,000 per month as maintenance to his son in a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act.
Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a trial court decision that had denied her monetary relief under the Domestic Violence Act. The appellate court partly allowed her appeal and modified the earlier order.
In its June 2 order, the court observed that it was the responsibility of the husband to manage his personal expenses and that citing unemployment or other financial obligations could not absolve him of his legal duty towards his wife and child.
"It is for the respondent/husband to manage his expenses and merely giving the excuse that he is jobless or that he has other responsibilities does not absolve him from maintaining his legally wedded wife and the minor son," the court said.
Holding that the husband was an able-bodied individual capable of earning, the court directed him to pay Rs 6,000 per month towards the maintenance of his minor son until he attains the age of majority.
According to the woman's complaint, she was subjected to dowry harassment, physical assault and mental cruelty by her husband and his family members after their marriage in February 2013. She alleged that she was forced out of her matrimonial home while pregnant and had been living separately with her son since 2015.
Court records showed that the couple briefly reunited following a settlement before a family court in 2015 and lived together in rented accommodation for a few months before separating once again.
The trial court had dismissed the woman's complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in September 2025, holding that she had failed to establish allegations of domestic violence and economic abuse.
While the appellate court agreed that claims of physical assault and cruelty were not supported by medical records or independent evidence, it found that the husband had not provided any financial support for the child since 2015.
"The respondent is equally responsible for maintaining the minor child," the court said, noting that the child had remained in the mother's custody for several years without receiving financial assistance from the father.
The court also rejected the husband's argument that the woman was not entitled to relief because she was educated.
"The capability to earn and actual earning are two different concepts," the judge observed, adding that the husband had failed to produce any credible evidence to show that the woman was earning enough to support herself and the child.
The court further noted that the husband had repeatedly failed to file an income affidavit despite being given several opportunities by the trial court.
"I am of the considered opinion that respondent/husband is capable of paying a maintenance amount of Rs 6,000 to the minor son till he attains the age of majority from the date of the present order," the court said while modifying the earlier ruling and allowing the appeal.
With PTI inputs