Stridhan Or Gifts From Parents Not Income To Deny Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that stridhant, inherited property or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be treated as her income to deny or reduce her claim for maintenance.

Court made it clear that a woman’s right to maintenance must be examined on the basis of her present earning capacity and her ability to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during marriage, and not on the financial strength of her parental family.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by a husband who had challenged the orders of the trial court and the sessions court directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month to his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The husband and wife were married on December 3, 2018 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Soon after the marriage, serious disputes arose between the couple. The wife alleged that she was subjected to physical, emotional and economic abuse during the marriage. She also claimed that her jewellery and valuables were taken by the husband and were never returned.

Initially, the couple lived in a farmhouse and later shifted to a rented accommodation in Vasant Kunj. The wife alleged that she was eventually left without any financial support. She thereafter approached the trial court under the Domestic Violence Act seeking interim maintenance.

In July 2024, the trial court directed the husband to pay Rs 50,000 per month as interim maintenance. This order was later upheld by the sessions court, following which the husband approached the Delhi High Court.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife was financially well placed and had deliberately concealed her true income and assets. He claimed that she owned multiple properties, had large investments and earned substantial income from fixed deposits and sale of assets. According to him, the wife was financially superior to him and therefore not entitled to maintenance. He also contended that he was unemployed and had no regular source of income, and that the courts below had wrongly presumed his earning capacity.

The wife opposed the petition and stated that she was unemployed and financially dependent on her husband. She argued that the assets reflected in her bank statements were either inherited or gifted by her parents and could not be treated as her income. She further alleged that the husband belonged to an affluent family and continued to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle while deliberately concealing his actual income and financial capacity. She maintained that she was entitled to live with the same dignity and standard of living that she had enjoyed during the marriage.

The High Court rejected the husband’s contention that the wife was financially self sufficient. It held that the documents relied upon by the husband mainly related to the sale of inherited assets, maturity of fixed deposits or isolated transactions, none of which established a regular or recurring source of income for the wife.

Court categorically observed that stridhant, inherited property or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be treated as a source of income to defeat her claim for maintenance. It noted that the wife was presently unemployed and financially dependent, and that her standard of living during the marriage was evidently high.

Emphasising that maintenance is not to be decided by mathematical calculation alone, the court held that it must ensure reasonable comfort consistent with the status enjoyed during matrimony.

"Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the income and social status of the parties, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Court. The quantum of ₹50,000/- per month awarded as interim maintenance is reasonable, just, and commensurate with the needs of the respondent-wife and the financial capacity of the petitioner," the Court said.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the court making it clear that its observations were limited to interim maintenance and would not affect the merits of the case pending before the trial court.

Case Title: X vs Y

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Order Date: 15 December 2025