Delhi High Court held that a wife cannot be presumed to be earning without proof while deciding interim maintenance. The Court enhanced interim maintenance by applying minimum wages based on the husband’s qualifications and place of work.
Wife Income Can’t Be Assumed at Maintenance Stage: The Delhi High Court has clearly ruled that at the stage of deciding interim maintenance, a wife cannot be presumed to be earning or capable of maintaining herself unless there is proper proof placed on record. The Court made it clear that mere allegations by the husband are not enough and that the burden lies on him to produce at least prima facie evidence to support such claims.
The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by a wife challenging an order of the Family Court which had granted her interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month. The marriage between the parties had taken place in 2021 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies, and no child was born from the marriage. The wife stated before the Court that she was a housewife, had studied only up to the 11th standard, owned no movable or immovable property, had no independent income, and was completely dependent on her parental family for survival.
The wife further claimed that the husband was a graduate and was earning around ₹25,000 per month by working as a teacher in a private school. She argued that the Family Court failed to properly assess the husband’s income based on his educational qualifications and minimum wages, especially when he did not place reliable documents on record to prove his actual income.
On the other hand, the husband alleged that the wife had left the matrimonial home on her own and that she was working as a nursery teacher earning about ₹10,000 per month. He claimed that she was capable of maintaining herself and therefore not entitled to higher interim maintenance.
While examining the matter, the High Court noted that it was not disputed that the wife had studied only up to the 11th standard. The Court observed that although the husband claimed that the wife was working and earning, he had failed to place any documentary proof to support this allegation.
The Court categorically held:
“Mere bald assertion that the wife is working and earning, without any proof to even prima facie support this claim, cannot be of any help to the respondent-husband at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that, for the purposes of grant of interim maintenance, the petitioner-wife cannot be presumed to be earning or being capable of maintaining herself”.
The Court then examined the income claimed by the husband. He stated that he was working as a teacher or special educator with an NGO and earning ₹10,000 per month. The Court found that this amount was even less than the minimum wages payable to a skilled person, despite the fact that the husband was admittedly a graduate.
The Court also noted that the husband had not filed complete bank account statements and had produced statements only for a limited period, which did not clearly show regular salary credits of ₹10,000 per month.
In these circumstances, the High Court held that the husband’s income must be assessed on the basis of minimum wages. The Court relied on settled legal principles and clarified that minimum wages provide a reasonable and lawful benchmark when a husband does not properly disclose his income. The Court also emphasized that minimum wages must be applied carefully by considering the correct State, skill category, and relevant time period.
Since it was admitted that the husband was residing and working in Uttar Pradesh, the Court applied the minimum wages applicable to a skilled graduate worker in Uttar Pradesh at the relevant time, which were approximately ₹13,200 per month. On this basis, the Court reassessed the husband’s income for the purpose of interim maintenance.
After considering the assessed income, the status of the parties, and the fact that the wife had no independent source of income, the High Court found that the interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month awarded by the Family Court was inadequate.
The Court therefore enhanced the interim maintenance and directed:
“Accordingly, to serve the interests of justice, the interim maintenance payable to the petitioner-wife is enhanced from ₹2,500/- per month to ₹3,500/- per month, payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. subject to adjustment of any amount already paid.”
The Court clarified that all observations made in the judgment were limited only to the issue of interim maintenance and would not affect the final decision of the case, which would be decided independently based on evidence led by both parties.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Purpose | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 | Provides maintenance to wife, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves | The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance due to lack of income |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 (Interim Maintenance) | Allows courts to grant temporary maintenance during pendency of proceedings | Interim maintenance was initially fixed at ₹2,500 and later enhanced by the High Court |
| Supreme Court Guidelines | Rajnesh v. Neha | Lays down principles for disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities in maintenance cases | The wife argued that the Family Court failed to properly assess income as per these guidelines |
| Minimum Wages Law | Minimum Wages Assessment | Used to determine notional income when actual income is concealed or not proved | High Court assessed husband’s income on minimum wages applicable to a skilled graduate in Uttar Pradesh |
| Criminal Revision Jurisdiction | Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (implicit) | Empowers High Court to examine correctness of Family Court orders | The wife invoked revisional jurisdiction to challenge inadequacy of interim maintenance |
Case Summary
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Case Title: XYZ vs ABC CRL.REV.P. 763/2024
- Nature of Case: Criminal Revision Petition challenging adequacy of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- Date of Judgment Reserved: 19.12.2025
- Date of Judgment Pronounced: 05.01.2026
- Date of Upload: 06.01.2026
- Counsel for Petitioner (Wife): Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondent (Husband): Mr. Lakshay Malhotra, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- A husband’s mere allegation that his wife is earning is legally meaningless unless backed by solid documentary proof.
- Courts can and will ignore the husband’s actual stated income if it appears suppressed or below minimum wage standards.
- Even minimal education of the wife does not reduce maintenance liability unless her real income is proven.
- Minimum wages become the default weapon against men when income disclosure is questioned, regardless of real-life constraints.
- Interim maintenance is decided on assumptions of “capacity to earn” for men, but not on verified reality for women.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
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 advised.