Delhi High Court: In a Revision Petition challenging the impugned maintenance order, a Sigle-Judge bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma,* J., affirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court regarding the petitioner’s obligation to provide maintenance of minor children and modified the quantum of interim maintenance from ₹30,000 per month to ₹25,000/- per month for all three children collectively. The Court further held that “Obligation to maintain minor children is not only a statutory duty but also a legal, moral, and social responsibility of both parents.”
In the instant matter, the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 26-01-2014 according to Hindu rites and customs. Three children were born out of the wedlock, two daughters and one son.
The respondent-wife alleged that soon after marriage she was subjected to harassment and persistent dowry demands, including demands for household appliances, clothes, and cash. It was further alleged that although she was assured prior to marriage that she would not be compelled to work, she was pressured shortly thereafter to take up employment and was made to hand over her entire salary to the petitioner and his family members. She narrated instances of physical, emotional, and economic abuse, which ultimately compelled her to initiate proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), along with an application for interim relief under Section 23.
By order dated 23-12-2023, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month, quantified at ₹10,000 per month for each of the three minor children, from the date of filing of the petition.
The appeal preferred by the husband under Section 29 of the PWDV Act was dismissed by the Sessions Court, vide order dated 30-03-2024, holding that the claim of earning only ₹9,000/- per month was “not bonafide and appears to be a ruse to avoid the payment of maintenance”
The Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the wife’s income or the fact that she had not sought maintenance for herself. The controversy centered solely around the petitioner’s income and his obligation towards the children.
On examining the petitioner’s ITRs for AY 2020—21 and 2022—23, the Court found that his annual income was in the range of ₹4.5—5 lakhs, translating to a monthly income of over ₹40,000. The plea of earning only ₹9,000 per month was found to be inconsistent with his educational qualifications, past financial disclosures, possession of a credit card, and unexplained bank credits. The Court concurred with the findings of the courts below that the petitioner was deliberately concealing his true income to avoid payment of maintenance.
The Court reiterated that maintenance of children is not confined to mere subsistence but extends to their education, healthcare, dignity, and overall development. Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266, the Court held that the mere fact that the mother is earning does not absolve the father of his obligation to provide maintenance of minor children, particularly when the mother is bearing the dual burden of employment and day-to-day caregiving.
In a significant observation, the Court held that a “working mother cannot be forced to exhaust herself physically, emotionally, and financially, and allow the father to take refuge behind selective, misleading disclosures about his income.” The Court emphasised that maintenance is “not charity or alms,” but a recognition of shared parental responsibility, obligation to provide maintenance of minor children and the child’s right to live with dignity.
While affirming the findings of the Trial Court and Sessions Court regarding the petitioner’s obligation to provide maintenance of minor children, the High Court modified the quantum of interim maintenance. Assessing the petitioner’s income conservatively at ₹40,000 per month and applying the formula laid down in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, the Court reduced the maintenance payable from ₹30,000/- per month to ₹25,000/- per month for all three children collectively.
The Court disposed of the revision petition, with a clarification that the observations were confined to interim maintenance and would not influence the merits of the pending trial
[A v. B, CRL.REV.P. 723/2024, CRL.M.A. 16673/2024, CRL.M.A. 6295/2025 & CRL.M.A. 28375/2025, Decided on 27-12-2025]
*Judgment by Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Prateek Mehta, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Shaini Bhardwaj, Ms. Rukhsar and Mr. Vedic Thukral, Counsel for the Respondent