The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that when a spouse conceals their income, courts can assess earning capacity based on lifestyle, conduct, and circumstantial evidence with the actual income evidence.
NEW DELHI: In an eye-opening ruling delivered on October 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, reaffirmed a Trial Court and Appellate Court order granting ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance to a wife and two minor children in Rukshar Hussain v. State & Anr.
The Court emphasized that when a husband conceals his true income or provides contradictory financial disclosures, the judiciary is empowered to determine maintenance through “judicial estimation” a fact-based and inference-driven process that evaluates lifestyle, standard of living, social circumstances, and credibility of disclosures rather than relying solely on salary slips or tax returns.
Justice Narula clarified that judicial estimation acts as a safeguard against financial manipulation in maintenance proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. By applying this doctrine, the Court upheld that incomplete or misleading income affidavits cannot defeat a woman’s right to sustenance, and that judicial discretion allows reasonable inference of earning capacity from the husband’s occupation, residence, and conduct.
The decision aligns with precedents such as Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007), Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 SCC 324), and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015 SCC 705), reinforcing that courts may estimate income when documentary proof is unavailable or intentionally suppressed.
Facts of the case
The case originated from a domestic-violence complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 (wife) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance for herself and two minor children.
The petitioner, Rukshar Hussain, married the respondent on 11 November 2017 in Delhi as per Muslim rites. Two children were born from the marriage, both of whom remained in the wife’s custody after the couple separated due to marital discord.
During the pendency of her domestic-violence complaint, the wife sought interim maintenance to cover basic expenses for herself and the two children. The Trial Court directed both parties to file income affidavits following the Delhi High Court guidelines in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Sharma, aimed at ensuring transparency in maintenance proceedings.
In his affidavit, the husband claimed to be a helper at S.T. Metal Display, earning only ₹8,000 per month, and alleged that his wife was earning ₹12,000 per month through stitching work. The wife, however, asserted that the husband was running his own business from property No. IX/5690, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and was earning around ₹2 lakh per month.
Verification by Protection Officer: To verify these claims, the Trial Court ordered an inspection by the Protection Officer.The Officer found the husband present at the commercial premises identified by the wife, confirming her version, whereas the address given by the husband was purely residential.This discrepancy exposed deliberate misrepresentation and concealment of income by the husband.
Trial Court’s Assessment: Considering the verified facts and lack of credible proof from the husband, the Trial Court applied judicial estimation to assess his income at ₹25,000 per month. It then awarded ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance—₹4,000 each for the wife and two children effective from the date of the petition.
Appeal Before the Sessions Court: The husband challenged the order, arguing that his wife was qualified and employable and that maintenance was wrongly granted.The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:Maintenance of wife and children is a moral and legal duty, not charity.Filing an appeal does not automatically stay maintenance orders. The husband’s failure to pay arrears despite directions showed disregard for court authority.
Revision Before the Delhi High Court: Rukshar Hussain then approached the Delhi High Court under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC, claiming:
- His income was limited to ₹15,500 per month, and he now supported a new family of five after remarriage.
- The lower courts failed to properly consider his financial capacity or the wife’s qualifications.
The wife, appearing in person, contended she had no independent income, was the sole caregiver for two school-going children, and the awarded amount barely met their survival needs.
Court’s Findings
Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court examined the entire record and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts, observing that both courts had “adopted a reasoned and balanced approach” in granting interim maintenance.
The Court made it clear that judicial estimation is not speculation, but a legal tool grounded in reason and equity. When direct proof of income is unavailable because of deliberate concealment or incomplete disclosures, courts are empowered to infer earning capacity from a party’s lifestyle, standard of living, and surrounding circumstances.
Justice Narula noted: “Where income is not fully disclosed or documentary proof is incomplete, courts are not expected to adopt a purely arithmetical method but may apply reasonable inference based on the overall standard of living, lifestyle, and surrounding circumstances of the parties.”
The Court held that this inference-based approach known as judicial estimation is indispensable in maintenance jurisprudence. It ensures that a litigant cannot take advantage of his own concealment. Justice Narula emphasized that the Protection Officer’s report conclusively proved that the husband misrepresented his employment details:
“The Protection Officer found the petitioner present at the business premises disclosed by the wife, whereas the address stated by the husband was residential in nature. The trial court, therefore, rightly concluded that the petitioner sought to misrepresent material facts to evade his maintenance obligations.”
Having found deliberate suppression of income, the Court approved the lower court’s decision to fix the monthly income at ₹25,000 through judicial estimation and to award ₹12,000 as interim maintenance ₹4,000 each for the wife and two children. Rejecting the husband’s argument that the wife was educated and employable, Justice Narula reiterated a long-standing principle of law:
“An able-bodied husband cannot evade his statutory duty to maintain his wife and child by merely asserting her employability or his own limited means. The obligation of the husband is not contingent on the wife’s employment status, but on whether she has sufficient independent income to maintain herself and the child in a manner commensurate with their status.”
Citing key precedents Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007 SCC OnLine 622), Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 SCC 324), and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015 5 SCC 705) the Court reaffirmed that judicial estimation is a legitimate and necessary exercise when parties attempt to frustrate maintenance proceedings by hiding or manipulating financial information. In conclusion, the High Court held that:
“The impugned orders disclose no perversity or infirmity warranting interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Interim maintenance is a provisional measure designed to safeguard basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings.”
Thus, the revision petition was dismissed, and the High Court upheld the ₹12,000-per-month interim maintenance, endorsing the doctrine of judicial estimation as a safeguard against financial evasion in maintenance cases.
Court’s Final Order:
After thoroughly reviewing the record, Justice Sanjeev Narula concluded that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court had followed a fair and legally sound approach. The High Court found no perversity, illegality, or procedural infirmity that could justify intervention under its limited revisional powers.Justice Narula stated:
“The impugned orders disclose no perversity or infirmity warranting interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It bears emphasizing that an order of interim maintenance is a provisional measure designed to safeguard basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings. It neither determines the parties’ ultimate rights nor precludes a fresh evaluation upon full evidence at the final stage.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the earlier orders granting ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance ₹4,000 each for the wife and two minor children. Justice Narula reaffirmed that the husband’s duty to maintain his family is both moral and statutory, emphasizing that employability or remarriage cannot absolve a man of his obligation toward his dependents.
Final Direction: “In light of the foregoing, the petition stands dismissed.”
Legal Significance
When Justice Turns to Estimation, Truth Must Still Remain the Goal:
This Delhi High Court judgment is more than a lesson in maintenance law it’s a mirror for the justice system itself. When courts begin to “estimate” a man’s income because he cannot prove his truth, it exposes the uneasy balance between protection and presumption.
Judicial estimation may safeguard survival, but it also shows how easily fairness can slip into assumption. If one spouse’s word becomes another’s burden, then justice must evolve not to protect gender, but to protect honesty. The real reform lies in making income transparency equal and mandatory for both, because estimation should never replace evidence, and compassion must never cost truth.
Explanatory table of sections/citations
| Law/case | Section/citation | Explanation/relevancy |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 12 | Empowers an aggrieved woman to seek maintenance, protection, and residence orders. The wife invoked this provision to claim interim maintenance for herself and her two minor children. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 397 | These sections grant the High Court revisional powers to correct legal or jurisdictional errors in lower court orders. The husband filed the present revision under these provisions. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 401 | These sections grant the High Court revisional powers to correct legal or jurisdictional errors in lower court orders. The husband filed the present revision under these provisions. |
| Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Sharma | Mandates both spouses to submit detailed income affidavits in all maintenance proceedings to ensure transparency and fairness. Both parties followed this, but the husband’s false disclosure was exposed through inspection. | |
| Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde | 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 | Recognized that when exact income data is unavailable, courts can estimate income based on lifestyle, living standards, and surrounding circumstances — forming the core principle of judicial estimation. |
| Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. | (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court directed uniform maintenance procedure and required full financial disclosure. Permitted courts to draw adverse inferences or use judicial estimation when income is concealed. |
| Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan | (2015) 5 SCC 705 | Held that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his duty to maintain wife and child by citing limited means or the wife’s qualifications. This was directly applied to reject the husband’s defense. |
| Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg | 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 | Reiterated that financial incapacity or remarriage does not relieve a man of his maintenance obligations. Used to justify upholding ₹12,000/month maintenance |
| Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta | MAT.APP (F.C.) 143/2014 (Delhi HC) | Relied upon by the husband to claim that a qualified wife is not entitled to maintenance. Distinguished by the Court — noting the wife here was unemployed and caring for two minors. |
| Rajeev Preenja v. Sarika & Ors. | 159 (2009) DLT 616 | Held that maintenance appeals are not maintainable until arrears are paid. Applied by the Sessions Court when the husband failed to deposit arrears. |
Case details
- Case Title: Rukshar Hussain v. State & Anr.
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 210 of 2018 (CRL.REV.P. 210/2018)
- Date of Judgment: 13 October 2025
- Judge / Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula
- Petitioner (Husband): Rukshar Hussain
- Respondents: State (NCT of Delhi) & Wife
- Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kinger, Ms. Roopa Nagpal, and Mr. Hemant Kumar
- Advocate for State: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP
- Provision Invoked: Sections 397 & 401 CrPC (Revisional Jurisdiction) read with Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Trial Court Order (07 October 2017): Granted ₹12,000 per month as interim maintenance (₹4,000 each for wife and two minor children). Husband’s income estimated at ₹25,000/month through judicial estimation.
- Appellate Court Order (17 February 2018): Dismissed husband’s appeal; held that maintenance is a moral and legal duty, not charity, and appeal does not stay payment of maintenance.
- High Court Proceedings (13 October 2025): Petition filed under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC challenging both lower court orders.
- Final Decision Revision Petition: Dismissed, Interim maintenance of ₹12,000/month maintained.
- Key Legal Principle: When income is hidden or not fully disclosed, courts may apply judicial estimation to ensure fair maintenance.
- Question in issue: Whether a court can determine and uphold an order of interim maintenance in the absence of documentary income proof, by relying instead on “judicial estimation” drawn from the husband’s lifestyle, conduct, and circumstantial evidence?
- Result / Relief Petition dismissed; ₹12,000/month maintenance upheld as a provisional measure ensuring basic sustenance during pendency of proceedings.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advise.