Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma modified an interim maintenance order, directing a petitioner-husband to pay ₹17,500 per month to his respondent-wife and their minor daughter living with her, from the date of the wife’s interim-maintenance application. The spouses are living separately; the son stays with the husband, and he had sought a reduction citing limited income and responsibility for the child in his care. The Court held that this custody arrangement does not lessen the husband’s obligation to maintain the wife and the minor child residing with her, observing, “the 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.”

The proceedings arose from a revision petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The parties were married, and two children were born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord, they began living separately. The minor son remained in the custody of the husband, while the minor daughter resided with the wife.

Also Read: Personal Liability Must Be Determined Before Executing NCDRC Decree Against Builder’s Directors/Promoters: Supreme Court

The wife-initiated proceedings seeking maintenance, asserting that she had no independent source of income and was compelled to reside in rented accommodation along with the daughter. She alleged that the husband had multiple sources of income, including property-related activities and contractual employment, and sought maintenance for herself and the child. The husband denied these claims, stating that his sole income was derived from a contractual engagement and that he was financially constrained while also supporting the minor son.

Both parties filed income and expenditure affidavits. Bank statements and supporting material were placed on record. The Family Court assessed the financial disclosures, concluded that the husband had concealed his true income, and awarded interim maintenance. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court seeking interference with the said order.

The High Court noted that “the marriage between the parties and the birth of two children from the wedlock stand admitted” and that “the parties have been living separately since January 2021”. It recorded that the allegations exchanged between the parties were “contentious in nature and are subject matter of proceedings pending between them”.

While considering the scope of interim maintenance, the Court observed that “at the stage of consideration of interim maintenance, this Court is neither expected nor required to embark upon a detailed inquiry or conduct a mini trial”. It further stated that “the obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and minor children, where they are unable to maintain themselves, is firmly embedded in law”.

With respect to the wife’s income, the Court noted that “beyond bare allegations, no material whatsoever was placed by the petitioner to show that the wife was running a beauty parlour or had any regular source of income”. In contrast, while examining the husband’s claim of limited income, the Court observed that “a clear inconsistency emerged” between his disclosed income and expenditure.

The Court recorded that “the expenses claimed by the petitioner… exceeded his stated income, even before accounting for his own basic expenses” and that “the pattern of transactions reflected in the bank account statements did not support the projected picture of subsistence”. It further observed that “recurring payments to fuel stations, service centres, restaurants and retail outlets were wholly inconsistent with the petitioner’s pleaded case”.

On income concealment, the Court stated that “the inference of concealment of income by the petitioner-husband was further reinforced by material placed on record indicating his engagement in real estate activities”. It also observed that “persons engaged in unorganised or semi-formal sectors often do not have neatly documented income streams” and therefore “a reasonable and pragmatic assessment… is both permissible and necessary”.

The High Court directed that “in modification of the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to pay a consolidated sum of ₹17,500/- per month towards interim maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2”. The said amount shall be payable from the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance, subject to adjustment of any amount already paid”.

Also Read: Detention Order Issued In Delhi Not Enough To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PITNDPS Preventive Detention Challenge

“Arrears, if any, shall be cleared in such manner as may be directed by the learned Family Court”. The present petition is disposed of in above terms” and that “pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of”.

“The observations made hereinabove are strictly confined to the adjudication of the application for interim maintenance” and that “the same are based on a prima facie assessment of the material placed on record at this stage”. The same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case; and the main petition shall be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties and in accordance with law”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. L. K. Singh, Advocate; Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava, Advocate; Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:15
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 409/2024
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma