Retirement corpus can't be treated as monthly income for maintenance, Delhi High Court clarifies in matrimonial dispute

Retirement savings cannot be treated as a substitute for monthly income when courts decide maintenance claims, the Delhi High Court has clarified. While the accumulated retirement corpus may be considered when assessing a person's overall financial resources, only the interest and other returns actually generated from investments can be counted as recurring income.

In its 8 October judgment in Meenakshi Batra v. Vijay Kumar Batra, a Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar said a retired person cannot be expected to consume accumulated retirement savings simply because the corpus is substantial. However, the court also made clear that having savings does not automatically disqualify a spouse from claiming maintenance.

The ruling came while the court dismissed an appeal filed by a retired Central government teacher seeking interim maintenance from her husband, a retired Army officer, during matrimonial proceedings. The court found that the woman had sufficient independent income and financial resources to meet her reasonable needs while the proceedings were pending.

What the court said about retirement savings and investment income

The dispute arose after the Family Court in Delhi rejected the wife's application for interim maintenance in April 2022. It had noted that both spouses were retired government employees receiving pensions and had sufficient financial resources to support themselves.

The wife challenged the order, arguing that the Family Court had treated her retirement benefits and savings as a continuing source of income without properly assessing her expenses and the husband's financial position.