Interim Maintenance Despite Husband’s Plea of Low Income

The Delhi High Court dismissed cross-revision petitions filed by both husband and wife. The wife had sought an enhancement of interim maintenance, while the husband had sought a reduction. The Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the husband to pay ₹25,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife and minor child, holding that the husband had attempted to downplay his financial capacity by showing reduced income after separation.

Brief Facts of the Case

• Marriage solemnized on 25.01.2019; one son born on 16.04.2020.
• Parties separated in April 2020, wife left with the child alleging cruelty.
• Wife filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in 2021, seeking ₹2,00,000 per month.
• Family Court (16.02.2024) awarded ₹25,000/month as interim maintenance.
• Wife sought enhancement, husband sought reduction citing meagre income of ₹14,000/month.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance of wife, children, and parents.

Arguments of the Wife

• Husband is a practicing lawyer with substantial rental income.
• Properties worth crores acquired in husband’s and family’s names.
• Husband manipulated ITRs post-separation to show reduced income.
• Interim maintenance of ₹25,000 is inadequate to cover her and child’s needs.

Arguments of the Husband

• Actual monthly income only ₹14,000 as an advocate.
• Properties belong to his parents; his name in sale deeds is only nominal.
• Wife is a B.Com graduate, capable of earning but deliberately unemployed.
• Claimed Family Court wrongly relied on his 2018–19 ITR (₹10,17,803) instead of 2020–21 ITR (₹1,80,000).
• Alleged wife indulged in excessive drinking and filed false cases (DV & 498A/406 IPC).

Court’s Observations

• Clear discrepancy between ITRs of 2018–19 (₹10.17 lakh) and 2020–21 (₹1.8 lakh).
• Decline in declared income post-separation suggested deliberate attempt to understate earnings.
• Wife pursuing CA and caring for a minor child; expectation of immediate employment not realistic (Shailja v. Khobbanna applied).
• Transfers of property to parents after separation raised doubts about concealment of assets.
• Interim maintenance of ₹25,000/month was a balanced figure, considering income, lifestyle, and needs of wife and child.

Conclusion of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s order of ₹25,000 per month interim maintenance. Both husband’s and wife’s revision petitions were dismissed. Arrears were directed to be cleared within two months.

Comments from the author of this website

Every time I read an order like this, I feel the deep imbalance that men face in maintenance disputes. In this case, the wife is educated, a graduate, and even pursuing a professional course like CA. She is not helpless, nor without potential. Yet, the court completely ignored her capacity to stand on her own feet. Instead, it placed the entire financial burden on the husband, as if it is his lifelong duty to provide, no matter what the reality of his own situation is.

The husband produced income tax returns to show a steep decline in his earnings, but the court brushed them aside as manipulation without any real investigation. On the other hand, when it came to the wife, her unemployment was accepted at face value, excused on the ground that she was caring for a young child. Why is it that a man’s explanations are always treated with suspicion while a woman’s are given the benefit of doubt?

This double standard is not only unfair, it is exhausting. Men are constantly told that their past earnings and past lifestyle set the benchmark for what they must continue to provide, even when their present circumstances have changed. But when it comes to women, their past education, qualifications, or career are conveniently forgotten the moment they step into a courtroom. All that matters is proving dependency, not potential.

To me, this judgment sends out a harsh message: no matter how hard a man works or how drastically his financial situation changes, he will still be judged as the “provider,” and no matter how qualified a woman is, she will still be treated as “dependent.” That is not equality—it is institutionalized bias. It punishes men for being men and rewards women for remaining financially inactive.

Final Thoughts

Maintenance should be about need, fairness, and truth—not about reinforcing stereotypes. If courts continue to impose one-sided obligations on husbands while absolving wives of responsibility, men will always feel trapped and disillusioned by the system. Real justice must mean holding both partners accountable, not turning one into a permanent provider and the other into a permanent dependent.

Read Complete Judgement Here