NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong> has held that a Family Court cannot decide interim maintenance<\/a><\/strong> by focusing only on the husband\u2019s income while ignoring other relevant factors such as his liabilities, responsibility towards children, the wife\u2019s qualifications, independent income and accommodation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Saurabh Banerjee<\/strong> made the observation while reducing the interim maintenance payable to a wife from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month<\/strong>. The Court said that even if the husband is financially well placed, all relevant circumstances must be considered before fixing maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties married in 1995 and have two children. The wife sought maintenance in 2021. The Family Court initially awarded her Rs 25,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance<\/strong> and later increased it to Rs 30,000 per month<\/strong> by an order dated June 5, 2024. The husband challenged the enhancement before the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before the High Court, the husband argued that both children were living with him<\/strong> and that he alone was bearing their educational and financial expenses. His elder daughter was pursuing an MBBS course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also submitted that the wife was an MBA (Finance) graduate<\/strong>, had rental income and interest from fixed deposits, was capable of earning and was living in a house purchased by him. He further referred to his outstanding loans and other liabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife opposed the petition and relied upon the husband\u2019s income affidavit and Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2022-23, which reflected income of more than Rs 63 lakh<\/strong>. Her counsel also submitted that he was running a cargo business and that the Family Court had already considered the relevant material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the case, the High Court relied upon Rajnesh v. Neha<\/a><\/em><\/strong>,<\/em> where the Supreme Court referred to several factors for determining maintenance, including the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the claimant, independent income and property, liabilities, number of dependants and payment capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment reproduced, among others, the following factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe independent income and property of the claimant.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe number of persons the non-applicant has to maintain.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n \u201cNon-Applicant’s liabilities, if any.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court said that interim maintenance is meant to \u201cprevent vagrancy\u201d<\/strong> of persons who are unable to support themselves. It also made it clear that the amount has to depend upon the actual facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be fixed mechanically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, the Court quoted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court had further explained that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent \u201cvagrancy and destitution\u201d<\/strong> and provide support to persons who are unable to maintain themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Coming to the facts, the High Court noted that both children were residing with the husband<\/strong> and that he was solely taking care of their educational and financial needs. His daughter was also pursuing an MBBS course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that the wife had been living for a considerable period in a three-bedroom residential property purchased by and belonging to the husband<\/strong>. She had an MBA (Finance)<\/strong> degree along with various degrees and diplomas in astrology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On her qualifications, the Court described her as a:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cwell-qualified lady possessing a worthy qualification sufficient for fending\/ truly capable of earning for herself.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that the wife was receiving Rs 10,450 per month as rental income<\/strong> and approximately Rs 4,400 per month as interest from fixed deposits<\/strong>. It further recorded that the husband had voluntarily been paying maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month<\/strong> even before ad-interim maintenance was granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court found that although the Family Court had noticed these circumstances, it had failed to give them proper weight while fixing maintenance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAlthough the learned Family Court has duly noted the (aforesaid) factors involved, it has not given due weightage to them while passing the impugned order, and has tilted solely towards the income of the petitioner.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Justice Banerjee further observed that although the husband was a \u201cman of means\u201d<\/strong>, that fact could not become the only consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court granting interim maintenance, cannot be oblivious of the cumulative variables which ought to be considered.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further added:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA balance has to be struck between the rights and liabilities of the applicant and non-applicant.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court therefore held that interference with the Family Court order was required. It reduced the wife\u2019s interim maintenance from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month<\/strong>, payable from April 12, 2021<\/strong>, the date of filing of the maintenance application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Means<\/strong><\/td> Application In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 125, CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Provides a summary remedy for maintenance to specified dependants who are unable to maintain themselves. Its object includes preventing vagrancy and destitution.<\/td> The wife had sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The High Court stressed that the quantum must be based on all relevant circumstances and not merely the husband\u2019s income.<\/td><\/tr> Section 125(3), CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Deals with enforcement where a person fails without sufficient cause to comply with a maintenance order.<\/td> The judgment describes the wife\u2019s application as having been filed under Section 125(3) CrPC.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 397\/401, CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Concern the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Courts and the High Court\u2019s powers in revision.<\/td> These were the erstwhile CrPC provisions corresponding to the BNSS provisions invoked in the husband\u2019s revision petition.<\/td><\/tr> Section 438, BNSS <\/a>2023<\/strong><\/td> Deals with calling for records to exercise powers of revision under the new procedural law.<\/td> The husband\u2019s revision petition was brought under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS, corresponding to the earlier CrPC revisional framework.<\/td><\/tr> Section 442, BNSS <\/a>2023<\/strong><\/td> Deals with the High Court\u2019s powers of revision.<\/td> Invoked by the husband to challenge the Family Court\u2019s maintenance order before the Delhi High Court.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19(4), Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Gives the High Court revisional power over certain Family Court orders passed under Chapter IX CrPC.<\/td> It formed part of the jurisdictional basis for challenging the Family Court\u2019s interim maintenance order.<\/td><\/tr> Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Provides for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during matrimonial proceedings where the statutory conditions are satisfied.<\/td> The Rajnesh v. Neha<\/strong> principles reproduced by the Court state that maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against an amount awarded under Section 24.<\/td><\/tr> Article 15(3), Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Permits the State to make special provisions for women and children.<\/td> Mentioned in the Supreme Court passage reproduced from Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai<\/strong> while explaining the social-justice purpose of Section 125 CrPC.<\/td><\/tr> Article 39, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Contains Directive Principles concerning livelihood, welfare and protection, including matters relating to men, women and children.<\/td> Referred to in the quoted Supreme Court discussion explaining the constitutional background of maintenance law.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Case Particular<\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> X v. Y<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Delhi<\/strong> at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122\/2024<\/td><\/tr> Connected Application<\/strong><\/td> CRL.M.A. 35886\/2024<\/td><\/tr> Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:DHC:6515<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Justice Saurabh Banerjee<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Judgment Reserved<\/strong><\/td> July 29, 2026<\/td><\/tr> Judgment Pronounced<\/strong><\/td> August 11, 2026<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Petitioner\u2019s Counsels<\/strong><\/td> Mr Piyush Gupta, Ms Isha Kapoor, Mr Jai Saini and Adv. Sudhanshu Sharma<\/td><\/tr> Respondent\u2019s Counsel<\/strong><\/td> Ms. Shruti Gupta<\/td><\/tr> Family Court Case<\/strong><\/td> M.T. Case 323\/2021<\/td><\/tr> Impugned Order<\/strong><\/td> June 5, 2024<\/td><\/tr> Family Court<\/strong><\/td> Family Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n