Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's interim maintenance order granted to his wife and minor daughter. The Court affirmed the Family Court's directive, holding that the award of Rs.10,000 per month to the wife and Rs.15,000 per month to the minor child was appropriate given the circumstances and financial disclosures. The Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and upheld the Family Court's assessment, observing that the capability to earn cannot be equated with actual employment and income. The application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and interrogatories raised by the appellant were noted to be pending and not part of the appeal's scope. The Court directed that no observation made shall influence the adjudication of pending matters before the Family Court.

The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on 11 December 2019 under Hindu rites. Following marital discord, the couple began living separately from 10 March 2021. A divorce petition was subsequently filed by the husband under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife, in the course of these proceedings, filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter born out of the wedlock, who was in her custody.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Jammu And Kashmir Police Over Custodial Torture | Orders CBI Probe And Rs 50 Lakh Compensation For Genital Mutilation Of Constable

The Family Court, by its order dated 7 December 2024 in HMA 587/2022, directed pendente lite maintenance in favour of the wife and child. The order read: "Respondent No.1 is awarded pendente lite maintenance for herself @ Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of filing of this application till the date of this order & @ Rs.10,000/- from the date of this order till the disposal of divorce petition and for minor daughter @ Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of application till the disposal of divorce petition."

The appellant contended before the High Court that the respondent-wife was employed as a Finance Executive at Miric Biotech, Delhi, and was also a registered Insurance Planner with Tata AIA, HDFC ERGO, and Apollo Munich. It was submitted that she concealed her true income and bank details, including fixed deposits, and failed to furnish income tax returns for three years. Alleging deliberate concealment, the appellant had filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C., pending before the Family Court.

Furthermore, the appellant claimed that the respondent was employed at ACS Academy, Dwarka Mor, as a kindergarten teacher, and thus not entitled to maintenance due to this alleged misrepresentation. Despite these claims, no definitive proof of her employment at ACS Academy was filed before the Family Court, and her supposed earnings were not established on record.

The wife, in response, submitted her PNB and SBI bank statements and ITRs for 2016-2021, which the appellant claimed indicated continued earnings after marriage. He also alleged income diversion via cash to present a reduced income before the Court.

The appellant further argued that he had been voluntarily paying maintenance towards the minor child since January 2022. He raised the contention that the Family Court had ignored his liabilities, including Rs.35,000/- per month payable to his mother under a Family Court order from Ahmedabad, and his personal loans.

The High Court recorded: "The appellant, however, could not produce any material before the learned Family Court to show that respondent no.1 is currently working." It further noted: "No proof that the respondent no.1 was working as a teacher at ACS Academy, Dwarka Mor, was filed before the learned Family Court by the appellant. The said contention of the appellant cannot be raised before us in an appeal as being raised for the first time."

The Bench clarified that: "Admittedly, the respondent no.1 is well-educated and has completed B.Tech and MBA." However, "We cannot lose sight of the fact that the capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things and a wife may leave her job due to family circumstances or to take care of the child."

The Court observed: "On the basis of the capability of the respondent no.1 and her qualifications, the learned Family Court had assessed her potential income to be Rs.25,000-Rs.30,000/- per month." It also noted that: "After comparing her assessed income to the actual income of the appellant, which was to the tune of Rs.1,74,354 per month, the learned Family Court had granted the aforementioned ad-interim maintenance to the wife and the child."

Regarding the appellant's financial burden towards his mother, the Court recorded: "The said maintenance amount of Rs.35,000/- per month was granted on the basis of the willingness of the appellant." It was further stated: "The mother of the appellant is, therefore, more appropriately considered a dependent of the father of the appellant, not the appellant himself."

In response to arguments regarding personal loans, the Court held: "It is the settled law that no relaxation for any personal loan or society loan or for purchase of any house or investment in any house, can be given in the matters of maintenance."

The Bench found: "The amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.15,000/- per month towards the daughter, cannot be considered excessive, keeping in view the high cost of living, spiraling price index of the essential commodities, the needs of the wife and the growing child, and the social status of the parties."

The High Court, after detailed consideration, dismissed the appeal. It held: "In view of the aforementioned discussion, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds Tata Tea’s Right To Decree Despite Company Name Change | Says Change Does Not Affect Legal Benefits Awarded

It clarified that: "The disposal of the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the application raising interrogatories, is within the domain of the learned Family Court and is not the subject matter of the present appeal filed against the impugned order granting ad-interim maintenance to the respondent no.1/wife and the child/respondent no.2."

The appeal and associated applications were accordingly dismissed with the following conclusion: "The present appeal along with the pending applications stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit."

The Court expressly directed: "No observation made in this order shall be treated by the learned Family Court as an expression of opinion while deciding the case/applications pending before it."

Advocates Representing The Parties:

For the Appellant: Sachin Kumar Daksh (in-person appearance)

For the Respondents: Ms. Charu and Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocates 

Case Title: XXX Vs. YYY

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5062-DB

Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 135/2025

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar