Case at a Glance
A Family Court in Delhi granted a wife and child maintenance of Rs 75,000 a month under Section 125 CrPC after the husband, who lives in Dubai, stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte. He challenged the order 729 days late, citing back pain, depression and treatment in Dubai. The Delhi High Court called these ’bald averments’ and pointed out that his own affidavit, verified in December 2025, showed he knew of the order and its execution and earned about AED 29,889 (roughly Rs 7.32 lakh) a month. The revision was dismissed as time-barred, and the Court added that a wife’s qualifications and capacity to earn are not, by themselves, a ground to deny maintenance.
The wife and the minor child (respondents 1 and 2) filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (MT No. 902/2021). The husband filed a reply but then stopped appearing, and he was proceeded ex parte from 22 December 2023. By a judgment dated 24 May 2024, the Family Court awarded Rs 75,000 a month from 21 December 2021, the date the petition was registered. Arrears up to 31 May 2024 were to be cleared within nine months, and from June 2024 the amount was payable by the seventh of each month.
The husband filed a revision under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with an application to condone a delay of 729 days. He blamed medical problems, back pain, mental-health issues and depression for which he said he was treated in Dubai. Although the petition described the order as interim maintenance, the High Court noted that it had in fact finally disposed of the Section 125 petition.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a husband who knew of a maintenance order and its execution get a delay of over two years condoned on general health grounds, and is a wife’s education or capacity to earn by itself a reason to deny her maintenance?
Bald Averments, His Own Affidavit, and the Rajnesh Principles
Justice Sachin Datta found the explanation for the delay to be ’bald averments unsupported by any cogent material’. The medical papers filed were described as ’inchoate’; they did not show that the husband was unable to take steps in the case, nor did they account for the delay. Crucially, the husband’s own affidavit of assets and liabilities, verified at Dubai on 13 December 2025 and filed in a separate complaint case before a Mahila Court, recorded that maintenance of Rs 75,000 a month had been awarded, that he had paid Rs 4 lakh with about Rs 26 lakh pending, that execution was pending, and that he earned AED 29,889 (about Rs 7,32,280) a month. Taken with his failure to take part in the Family Court after filing a reply, and the absence of any detail about when he learned of the judgment, the Court refused to condone the delay.
On the merits, the Court rejected the argument that the wife was qualified and capable of earning. Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 11 SC CK 0009, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and the authorities collected in it — including Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2017) 01 SC CK 0049, (2018) 12 SCC 199, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2007) 11 SC CK 0118, (2008) 2 SCC 316, Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 10 SC CK 0075, (2014) 16 SCC 715 and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 04 SC CK 0108, (2015) 5 SCC 705 — the Court reiterated that ’An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife’, that the husband carries the burden of proving inability to pay, and that maintenance means more than bare survival.
What the Court Actually Held
- The application to condone the 729-day delay was dismissed; the health-based explanation was unsupported by cogent material.
- The husband’s own December 2025 affidavit showed he knew of the maintenance order and its execution, defeating his plea of delay.
- A wife’s qualifications or capacity to earn are not, by themselves, a ground to deny maintenance (following Rajnesh v. Neha).
- The revision petition was dismissed as barred by limitation and all pending applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that vague medical excuses will not revive a stale challenge to a maintenance order, particularly where the payer’s own filings prove knowledge.
- Affidavits of assets and liabilities filed under Rajnesh v. Neha in one proceeding can be used against the deponent in another.
- It reinforces that a husband earning well abroad cannot escape maintenance by pointing to the wife’s education.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives and Children Claiming Maintenance
- If the husband stops appearing, the Family Court can proceed ex parte and decide the petition; execution can then follow.
- Keep copies of any income affidavit the husband files in other cases — it may show his real earnings and knowledge of orders.
For Counsel
- A delay application must give specific dates and particulars: when the order became known and why steps could not be taken.
- Medical records must link the illness to an inability to act; general prescriptions will not do.
- Cite Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 on the presumption that an able-bodied husband can earn.
Key Takeaways
- A 729-day delay in challenging a Rs 75,000 monthly maintenance order was not condoned.
- Bald, unparticularised health claims are not ’sufficient cause’.
- The husband’s own affidavit (AED 29,889 a month; Rs 26 lakh pending) undercut his case.
- Capacity of the wife to earn is not by itself a ground to refuse maintenance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a husband challenge a Section 125 maintenance order after two years?
Only if he shows sufficient cause for the delay. In this case the Delhi High Court refused to condone a 729-day delay because the explanation was vague and the husband’s own affidavit showed he knew of the order.
Does a qualified wife lose her right to maintenance?
No, not merely because she is qualified or could earn. Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court said these factors alone are not a ground to deny maintenance.
What happens to unpaid arrears in such cases?
The Family Court’s order stands and can be executed. Here the husband’s affidavit itself recorded that execution proceedings were pending for the unpaid amount.
Conclusion
The ruling is short but pointed: a party who sits out the trial, lets an order become final and then returns years later with general health claims will not get the delay excused, especially when his own sworn statement shows he knew exactly what had been ordered.
Practical takeaway: In maintenance cases, search the opposite party’s filings in other proceedings — a Rajnesh-format affidavit can prove both income and knowledge.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com