Common Strategy Adopted By Well-Qualified Husbands To Quit Jobs To Avoid Paying Maintenance: Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Of CRPF Officer Who Voluntarily Retired The Delhi High Court was considering a petition challenging a judgment of the Family Court awarding maintenance to the man’s wife and children

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a CRPF Officer who had taken voluntary retirement and upheld the maintenance order. The High Court observed that just as employed wives allegedly leave their jobs to gain an upper hand in maintenance disputes, quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well-qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well. The High Court was considering a petition challenging a judgment of the Family Court awarding maintenance to the wife and children of the petitioner. The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “The petitioner has failed to explain the circumstances which led him to taking voluntary retirement in July, 2022 when he was around 47 years old, despite having years of service left. Although the learned Trial Court has noted that no government employee will ordinarily take retirement with the sole intention of depriving his wife and children of the benefit of maintenance, however, as per the deposition of the petitioner, he was deriving no income from the agricultural land despite efforts to cultivate the same. Just as employed wives allegedly leave their jobs to gain an upper hand in maintenance disputes, quitting of jobs is similarly a common strategy adopted by well-qualified husbands to avoid paying proper amount of maintenance as well. It appears to be implausible that the petitioner would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income.” Also Read – Failure To Furnish Written Grounds Of Arrest Vitiates Remand: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused “Considering that it is common for government employees to take up employment in private sector after voluntary retirement and that the petitioner is a wellbodied man capable of earning, he cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife and children by claiming that he has no income after retirement apart from his pension. The petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family, and the purported lower MSP prices for his land would thus not help his case”, it added.