S. 125 CrPC | Technical Lapses Can’t Defeat Purpose Of Interim Maintenance | Delhi High Court Upholds ₹50K Award To Wife And Minor Child Despite Unemployment Claim
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has dismissed a revision petition filed against an order of interim maintenance. The Court upheld the Family Court’s directive requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹50,000 per month to the respondent and her minor child. The Court stated that there was no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order that warranted interference under revisional jurisdiction. The Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to place additional material before the Family Court at the appropriate stage, if there is any change in financial circumstances. The Family Court’s order, dated 20.05.2024, shall continue to operate during the pendency of the original petition.
The revision petition arose from an order passed by the Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in M.T. Case No. 522/2023. The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and her minor child from the date of filing of the petition.
The petitioner and the respondent had married on 26.05.2017 in Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Their marriage was consummated and a male child was born on 23.08.2019. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on 06.10.2023 seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. The respondent also filed an application seeking interim maintenance.
The respondent alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner and his family members. She claimed that the petitioner was earning a rental income of more than ₹4,00,000 per month and sought maintenance of ₹2,00,000 per month. The Family Court, after evaluating the materials on record, awarded ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Aggrieved by the Family Court’s order, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a criminal revision petition. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without appreciating the factual matrix and was based solely on the pleadings and affidavit submitted by the respondent.
The petitioner submitted that he was unemployed and dependent on his ailing mother who was suffering from stage-three brain tumour. It was further contended that the learned Family Court erroneously presumed a notional income of ₹1,00,000 per month based on ancestral property which, according to the petitioner, was jointly owned by several family members and generated limited rental income. The petitioner claimed that the rental income was received in his mother’s name.
The petitioner further argued that the respondent was highly qualified and capable of sustaining herself. He also alleged that the respondent had suppressed details of an undisclosed bank account in her income affidavit. The petitioner also submitted that he was represented by a proxy counsel before the Family Court on the day the impugned order was passed and that a request for adjournment was wrongly denied.
The State, represented by the learned APP, opposed the revision petition. It was submitted that the Family Court had passed a reasoned order after considering the affidavits and other materials on record. The State argued that the amount of interim maintenance awarded was reasonable and consistent with the standard of living that the parties were accustomed to.
The State further submitted that the petitioner failed to submit his reply or supporting documents despite being given sufficient opportunities. The contention that the petitioner had no income or was facing financial hardship was not substantiated by documentary evidence. The State also noted that the petitioner had admitted to having a share in ancestral property, and therefore could not disclaim his legal obligation to maintain his spouse and minor child.
The Court recorded: "The admitted facts of the present case are that the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on 26.05.2017... and one male child was born from the said wedlock on 23.08.2019. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is presently living separately... and has the custody of the minor child."
It further observed: "The purpose of granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure that a spouse, who is unable to maintain herself and is dependent, is not left in destitution or vagrancy during the pendency of proceedings."
Regarding the income affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the Court stated: "Although the revisionist has denied the allegations... no cogent documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of low income." The Court also noted that the petitioner had not filed income tax returns or bank statements.
On the Family Court’s assessment of income, the Court remarked: "At the stage of interim maintenance, a detailed trial or adjudication on the actual income is neither warranted nor possible. A prima facie assessment is to be made on the basis of pleadings, affidavits, and such material as may be available on record."
The Court stated the responsibility of the petitioner as a father, stating: "The revisionist, as the biological father, cannot abdicate his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his minor child." The Court noted that the respondent had sole custody and was responsible for meeting all daily expenses for the child.
It observed: "While the right to fair opportunity and adherence to natural justice are essential, it is equally true that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the very purpose of the provision."
Referring to precedents, the Court cited Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705: "If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife... He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning."
The Court also referred to Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314: "It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and children..."
The Court noted that the petitioner had admitted to having a share in ancestral property, which generated a rental income of ₹73,000 per month, and stated: "Even if the petitioner contends that the income is received by his mother... it is also established that he resides in a joint family setup and is not completely devoid of means."
The Court recorded: "This Court finds no reason to interfere with the interim maintenance amount of ₹50,000/- per month awarded by the learned Family Court, which appears to be proportionate to the standard of living of the parties and the needs of the minor child."
It further directed: "The petitioner is at liberty to place on record any additional material, including changes in financial circumstances, before the learned Family Court at the appropriate stage."
Concluding the matter, the Court held: "This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition alongwith pending applications, if any, is accordingly dismissed."
The Court also directed: "The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Beniwal and Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhirendra Singh and Mr. Navdeep Mavi, Advocates
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6350
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. (MAT.) 49/2024
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
