Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order of assessing the husband’s income and directing payment of interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a Single-Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., modified the impugned order and reduced the interim maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹17,500/- per month, payable to wife and the minor daughter. The Court held that custody of one child does not dilute husband’s maintenance obligation under Section 125 CrPC to maintain wife and other child living with her.
“Mere fact that one child is in the custody of the petitioner-husband cannot, by itself, be a ground to absolve him of his obligation to maintain respondent no.1-wife and the minor child residing with her. he responsibility of maintenance does not stand divided merely because each parent has custody of one child.”
The petitioner-husband and respondent 1-wife are legally married, and two children were born from the wedlock, a son born and a daughter. The son is in the custody of the husband, while the daughter (respondent 2) resides with the wife.
Due to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately since January 2021. The wife alleged that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of physical assault and cruelty. She further claimed that owing to lack of adequate accommodation, she had shifted to rented premises in February 2021 and was paying rent of ₹7,000 per month.
Respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of ₹75,000/- per month for herself and ₹50,000/- per month for the minor daughter. She asserted that the petitioner owned properties at Munirka fetching rental income, possessed another flat, was engaged in property dealing, and was also working with the MCD on a contractual basis.
However, the husband denied all such allegations and contended that he owned no properties, had no rental income, and was earning only about ₹13,500/- per month from his contractual employment with the MCD. He further alleged that the wife was herself earning ₹50,000/- per month from a freelance beauty parlour.
Upon scrutinising the income and expenditure affidavits and bank statements, the Family Court found that the petitioner’s “expenses are found to be more than what he claims to earn” and that the “withdrawal pattern does not tally with pattern of expenditure claimed.” The Family Court assessed, the petitioner’s income at not less than ₹60,000/- per month and hence, awarded interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month in favour of the wife and minor daughter.
The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are meant to provide immediate relief and prevent vagrancy and destitution, and that at the stage of interim maintenance, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.
“The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and minor children, where they are unable to maintain themselves, is firmly embedded in law. This obligation flows not only from Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also from the larger social and constitutional objective of preventing vagrancy and destitution. Proceedings for maintenance are, by their very nature, meant to provide immediate relief and basic subsistence.”
The Court held that the mere fact that one child was residing with the petitioner did not absolve him of his obligation to maintain the wife and the minor child residing with her. The Court further stated that while this factor was relevant for determining quantum, it did not negate the statutory obligation.
On the issue of income, the Court found that the Family Court had not proceeded on surmises but had undertaken a holistic examination of the petitioner’s own affidavits and bank statements. The Court observed that the petitioner’s claimed expenses exceeded his stated income even before accounting for his own subsistence. The frequent and unexplained transactions reflected in the bank statements, including payments to fuel stations and commercial outlets, were found to be inconsistent with a claimed income of ₹13,500/- per month.
The Court also upheld the Family Court’s reliance on material indicating engagement in property dealing and observed that in cases involving unorganised sectors, the Court cannot insist upon mathematical precision and is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from surrounding circumstances, expenditure patterns, and lifestyle indicators.
However, the Court took a balanced view and held that while concealment of income was evident, the assessment of ₹60,000/- per month required moderation. Considering that the petitioner was also maintaining the minor son, the Court reassessed the petitioner’s income at ₹50,000/- per month for the purpose of interim maintenance.
The Court modified the impugned order and directed the petitioner to pay a consolidated sum of ₹17,500/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and minor daughter, payable from the date of filing of the application, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.
[A v. B, CRL.REV.P. 409/2024 & CRL.M.A. 9309/2024, Decided on 05-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. L. K. Singh and Mr. Raj Kumar, Counsel for the Petioner
Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava and Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Counsel for the Respondents