Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has enhanced a wife’s interim maintenance to ₹1,00,000 per month, payable from the date she moved the application, while directing the husband to clear any arrears within 12 weeks and allowing release of the amount deposited in court to the wife. The dispute arose from cross-challenges to a family court order granting ₹50,000 per month, with the wife seeking enhancement on the basis of the husband’s earnings and residence abroad, and the husband seeking reduction by pointing to the wife’s qualifications and past employment. The Court noted that foreign earnings cannot be treated by simply converting them into Indian currency for maintenance, without assessing the surrounding circumstances and living costs overseas.

The proceedings arose out of cross-revision petitions filed by both spouses challenging orders passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance. The wife approached the High Court seeking enhancement of interim maintenance awarded at ₹50,000 per month, contending that the husband was employed as a Software Engineer abroad and earning in foreign currency, while she had no independent source of income. It was asserted that the husband had no other dependants and had failed to disclose his complete income details before the Family Court.

Also Read: Criminal Revision By Informant Need Not Abate On Death; Supreme Court Allows Victim’s Heir To Continue

The husband filed a separate revision seeking reduction of the interim maintenance, asserting that the wife was highly qualified, had previously been employed, and possessed the capacity to earn. He also challenged the dismissal of his application seeking recall of the interim maintenance order. The Court noted that the husband had not filed a written statement or a detailed income affidavit before the Family Court, leading to his defence being struck off. The material on record included income documents and affidavits placed by the wife, as well as disclosures made by the husband in parallel proceedings.

The Court recorded that the purpose of granting maintenance is preventive in nature, noting that “the object of granting maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.”

Referring to settled law, the Court observed that “the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family,” and that “the expression ‘unable to maintain herself’ does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before seeking maintenance.”

On the conduct of the husband before the Family Court, it was recorded that “the Husband has failed to file his Written Statement and had not even furnished his detailed Income Affidavit, in view of which his defence was struck off.” Consequently, “the learned Family Court proceeded to make a prima facie assessment of the interim maintenance on the basis of the material placed on record by the Wife.”

While considering foreign employment, the Court observed that “the determination of interim maintenance is not an exercise capable of mathematical precision,” and that in such cases “the assessment necessarily involves a degree of estimation and informed guesswork.”

The Court further stated that “mere earning in foreign currency does not, by itself, entitle the wife to claim maintenance by mechanically converting the husband’s foreign income into Indian currency,” since “the cost of living in the country where he is employed has to be considered.”

With respect to the wife’s qualifications, the Court recorded that “mere capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings,” and that such issues “can only be ascertained after evidence is led by both the parties.”

The Court directed that “the interim maintenance is enhanced from Rs. 50,000/- per month to Rs. 1,00,000/- per month,” and clarified that “the enhanced interim maintenance shall be payable from the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance, subject to adjustment of any amount already paid.”

Also Read: Export-Only Assessees Can’t Be Benchmarked Against Comparables With Non-Export Operations: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal In Investment Advisory Services Dispute

“The arrears, if any, shall be cleared by the Husband within 12 weeks,” and that “the amount deposited by the Husband before this Court as arrears of maintenance be released in favour of the Wife. The learned Trial Court is directed to pass the final order uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.”

“The Petition filed by the Wife bearing CRL.REV.P. 768/2023 is allowed and the Petition filed by the Husband bearing CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 169/2025 is dismissed,” and further ordered that “the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Juneja, Advocate; Mr. Syed Kamran Ali, Advocate; Mr. Yusuf Khan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Juneja, Advocate; Mr. Syed Kamran Ali, Advocate; Mr. Yusuf Khan, Advocate

Case Title: X v Y
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11985
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 768/2023 & CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 169/2025
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan