New Delhi: A Delhi court has observed that a person cannot be ordered to pay maintenance beyond his means even if the amount awarded to his estranged wife is insufficient to meet her basic needs, stressing that maintenance has to be assessed in light of the paying spouse's actual or presumed income.The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal by a woman challenging an interim maintenance of Rs 1,840 per month awarded by a magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act.Hearing the plea, Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh said the contention that the amount was too meagre to enable the woman to survive in Delhi could not be disputed.In an order dated September 1, the court said, The court has to keep in mind that the appellant could only be awarded maintenance of income which the respondent no 2 (husband) was having or could be presumed to have .The court noted that there was no evidence to establish the monthly income of the woman's husband. While she claimed that he owned a medical store and earned rental income from agricultural and commercial properties, no documents were produced to substantiate these claims. At the same time, the court has to keep in mind that the appellant could only be awarded maintenance of income which the respondent no 2 was having or could be presumed to have, the judge said.The magistrate court had consequently assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages applicable in Uttar Pradesh, where he was residing.According to the order, the minimum wage for an unskilled worker at the relevant time was around Rs 11,021 per month.The trial court followed the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in Annurita Vohra v Sandeep Vohra case and divided the income among the family members for determining maintenance.The woman had claimed that her husband could pay Rs 15,000-Rs 20,000 per month and alleged that she was an illiterate woman with no source of income. She also claimed that her family had spent over Rs 10 lakh on her marriage and provided household articles and jewellery.Her husband, however, claimed that he worked as a helper/salesman at a medical store and earned only Rs 8,000 per month. He also said he had to support himself and the couple's three children.The sessions court observed that the husband belonged to the poor strata of society and therefore could not be directed to pay beyond his means, even though the amount awarded is insufficient .Following the same principle, the Delhi court said, The respondent no 2 (husband) belongs to poor strata of society. That being the case, he cannot be ordered to pay beyond his means even though the amount awarded is insufficient. Thus, I do not find any fault in the maintenance awarded to the appellant. It accordingly dismissed the appeal.
