Delhi High Court: In the present case, a revision petition was filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) and Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the petitioner-husband, challenging the order dated 9-5-2025 of the Family Court, New Delhi (‘the Trial Court’), which granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs 1,00,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., observed that raising objections at this stage to the grant of maintenance despite the wife’s earning capacity, and stating that it would be like breeding a class of idle women dependent on their husband, was premature and unwarranted. The Court stated that the order dated 9-5-2025 was only ad-interim in nature, which was meant to provide immediate relief until the interim maintenance application was finally decided. The Court thus, dismissed the petition for devoid of merits and stated that both the parties were at liberty to make contentions before the Trial Court during the consideration of the interim maintenance application.
Background:
The parties got married on 3-4-2022, but due to matrimonial discord, they got separated on 9-4-2023. The wife thus, subsequently filed a petition under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking monthly maintenance.
Initially, the matter was adjourned before the Trial Court as it was pending before Mediation but since the matter could not be settled between the parties, it went back to the Trial Court for adjudication. In May 2025, the parties again showed an inclination towards an amicable resolution, but the wife insisted on an interim maintenance to be fixed. The husband submitted that though he genuinely believed that dispute between him and his wife would be amicably settled through counselling and mediation, but the mediation failed between them. Thus, it would take some time to file an ‘apostilled’ Income Affidavit since he was based in Australia, for which he had filed an application and the same was allowed by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 per month to the wife without any basis.
The husband contended that his wife was a highly educated and accomplished individual, holding multiple professional degrees and certifications and having work experience at HCL Technologies and academic institutions. Despite her qualifications and educational accomplishments, his wife had voluntarily chosen not to work and even failed to make full and timely financial disclosures. She delayed submission of her bank statements, and the one eventually provided was incomplete and omitted key information, including Income Affidavit, available balance in her account and details of other active accounts reflected in her ITRs.
The husband submitted that the Trial Court could not have made a fair and informed decision regarding the temporary maintenance order, without examining the financial disclosures from both the parties. His wife was enjoying a luxurious lifestyle without any financial support from him, had no dependents, as her father was a retired Army Officer, who received substantial pension and enjoyed various Government provided benefits. The husband asserted that maintenance was not justified where the wife was capable of earning but chose to remain unemployed, expecting to be supported by their husband.
The wife submitted that she was employed prior to her marriage, but she left her job and moved to Australia to join her husband. However, within a year of their marriage, she was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home and left stranded on the road, after which she sought shelter at a Gurudwara and eventually returned to India with the help of friends and family. She also submitted that her academic qualifications could not be held against her in denying interim maintenance.
Case Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that while the parties were married on 3-4-2022 and separated within a year on 9-4-2023, the wife, though highly qualified and skilled in HR, was presently unemployed, and there was no evidence to suggest she voluntarily left her job without cause. The Court opined as she had resigned upon relocating to Australia post-marriage, she was entitled to be financially supported by her husband until she secured gainful employment or a source of income.
The Court addressed the contention regarding application of Indian and Australian standards for determining maintenance, and observed that although living costs differed, but so did the incomes, and the husband, earning in Australia Dollars (‘AUD’), could not claim undue hardship in paying Rs 1,00,000 per month, equivalent to around AUD $1806. The Family Court had considered the fact that the husband claimed to be assisting with and running the family business and had even showed reluctance to disclose his income while admitting to monthly expenses of AUD $500—$600. The Court took note of the wife’s submission that the husband was a director in a multinational company and was introduced at the time of marriage as a multimillionaire. Since the husband failed to provide a clear financial picture, the Trial Court considered oral submissions to assess his financial and economic status.
The Court stated that the order dated 9-5-2025 was only ad-interim and subject to revision once both parties’ income affidavits, contentions, and supporting documents were considered. The Court opined that the argument that the maintenance order was made prior to filing of the husband’s affidavit was untenable.
The Court opined that saying, at this stage that by granting maintenance to the wife despite her earning capacity, would be breeding a class of idle women who being a burden on their husband, might be premature and unwarranted especially considering that it was only an ad-interim maintenance order to provide immediate relief to the lady till such time the interim maintenance application was decided.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, with liberty granted to both parties to raise all contentions before the Trial Court during the consideration of interim maintenance.
[Gurpratap Singh v. Aashna Kaur, CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 266 of 2025, decided on 10-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Shilpa Ohri, Sanyam Khetarpal and Prakriti Anand, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Kajal Chandra and Hatneimawi, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
