DELHI HIGH COURT DISMISSES CRPF OFFICER’S PETITION, HOLDS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT NO EXCUSE TO AVOID MAINTENANCE:

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer who took voluntary retirement at the age of around 47 years and sought to challenge the maintenance awarded to his wife and children. Justice Amit Mahajan, in a single-judge bench ruling, upheld the Family Court’s order and observed that well-qualified husbands often resort to quitting stable jobs as a deliberate strategy to reduce their income and avoid paying adequate maintenance. The court noted that, just as some employed wives reportedly leave their jobs to strengthen their position in maintenance disputes, a similar tactic is commonly adopted by capable husbands to evade their financial responsibilities.

The petitioner had challenged the Family Court’s judgment granting maintenance to his wife and two children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He argued that after his voluntary retirement in July 2022, his only income was from a modest pension and agricultural land, which yielded negligible returns despite his efforts to cultivate it. He further claimed that the wife was residing at her parental home and had allegedly let out the shared household for financial benefit, and that the Family Court had overestimated his income without properly considering his changed circumstances. On the other hand, the wife submitted that she was a homemaker with no independent source of income and was solely responsible for supporting the children’s higher education.

Justice Mahajan carefully examined the facts and found the husband’s explanation for taking early retirement unconvincing. The court pointed out that the petitioner failed to disclose any compelling reasons for retiring with several years of service still remaining, especially from a stable and well-paying government job. It was observed that it seemed highly implausible for him to have taken such a step without securing an alternative source of income. The bench emphasised that an able-bodied and well-qualified man cannot simply shirk his sacred duty to financially support his wife and children by claiming he has no income apart from pension after voluntary retirement. The court added that it is quite common for government employees to take up private sector employment after voluntary retirement, and the petitioner, being physically fit and capable, was expected to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. Claims of low minimum support prices for agricultural produce were held insufficient to absolve him of his obligations.

The High Court reaffirmed the fundamental object of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by requiring those who can provide support to do so for dependents who have a moral and legal claim on them. The bench clarified the limited grounds on which a wife may be denied maintenance, such as living in adultery, refusing to cohabit without sufficient reason, or mutual separation by consent. In this case, the parties had been living separately since 2013, with the wife looking after the children. The court noted that the husband had not even challenged the maintenance awarded to his son (who had since attained majority), and the mere fact that the wife continued in possession of the matrimonial home did not amount to neglect on his part or disentitle her from receiving support.

Regarding the assessment of income, the court observed that the husband had remained in active CRPF service until July 2022, and his earnings for the period from the filing of the maintenance application in January 2016 could not ignore his salary and benefits during those years. The Family Court’s modest increase of 10 per cent in maintenance every two years was found reasonable, especially considering that the husband’s income would likely have crossed ₹40,000 per month by 2019. The bench refused to accept the assertion that the petitioner had no other source of income besides pension post-retirement and held that he was under a continuing obligation to earn and maintain his family. After considering all aspects of the case, arguments advanced by Advocate Gurpreet Singh for the petitioner and Advocate Deepak Garg for the respondent, and the overall evidence on record, Justice Amit Mahajan concluded that the Family Court’s order did not warrant any interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the maintenance awarded to the wife and children.