top of page

Wife denied enhancement of maintenance due to being wealthier than husband

Wife denied enhancement of maintenance due to being wealthier than husband

Shiny Verma Bakshi Vs Dr Gurneet Singh Bakshi

Delhi HC


CRL.M.C. 2085/2020

About/from the judgment:

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking enhancement of maintenance granted to a wife.

The instant petition was filed to seek enhancement of maintenance granted to the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner/wife got married to respondent 1 husband in a 5-star hotel, organized by the family of the petitioner due to persistent demands by the respondents because it was within the knowledge of the respondents that petitioner was a divorced lady, but they had an objection to the same.

It was stated that the petitioner was a housewife with no independent income whereas respondent 1 a doctor had an admitted salary of Rs 92,000. Respondent 1 earned additional income through consultancy and interest from FDRs which was not disclosed by him.

Further, it was added that the mother of the petitioner was also a housewife whereas father of petitioner was 100% paralyzed and disabled for last about 20 years and during pendency of the present lis, father of petitioner succumbed to COVID-19 and passed away.

Respondent 1's family lead a luxurious lifestyle and admittedly, he was not required to maintain his parents or any other relative.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent 1 was getting a gross salary of Rs 92,000 and his expenses per month were of Rs 89, 483. He had no FD, property or inherited property by any law of succession.

Hence respondent 1 was not in a position to pay even Rs 8,000 as directed by the Court, therefore, he sought the dismissal of the instant petition.

Analysis and Decision

Bench noted that the petitioner was undisputedly highly qualified and her qualifications were as under:

(i) BBA from ITM College Gurgaon

(ii) MBA from IILM College Lodhi Road, New Delhi

(iii) Core Franchisee Certificate, Sydney, Australia

Court also noted the working proof of the petitioner as stated by the respondents. Though the petitioner had claimed that her deceased father was handicapped, but never disclosed that they had received Rs 32,93,224 + 7.5% p.a. interest as compensation from the date of accident awarded by this Court, beside this he has also received a lumpsum amount from its employer along with regular benefits i.e. D.A.

A list of inherited properties of the petitioner was also laid down by respondents. Moreover, the petitioner had claimed that her parents spent Rs 1 crore on her previous marriage and also spent a good amount on her second marriage.

The explanation with respect to the money spent was not given when none of them were working as stated by the petitioner to the Court.

Court expressed that the petitioner failed to establish that respondent 2 was having more income than the admitted or assets in his name. Whereas, on the other hand, the petitioner was wealthier than respondent 1 and maintaining a better standard of life.

Hence, the instant petition was dismissed.

Read the Judgment


Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

bottom of page