The Delhi High Court has held that while a lump sum amount received by a wife from a property sale must be adjusted against interim maintenance, such adjustment must commence from the date of the maintenance application rather than the date of separation. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that this ensures consistency with the legal principle that maintenance is generally awarded from the date of filing the application.
Background
The petitioner (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on November 13, 2013, and separated in March 2019. During subsequent legal proceedings, it emerged that a property in Rohini—purchased in the wife’s name using the husband’s funds in 2018—was sold in 2019. The wife admitted to receiving approximately ₹20,00,000 as net sale proceeds.
On May 31, 2023, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) but did not account for the ₹20,00,000 in the wife’s possession. The husband sought a review of this order, which was dismissed by the Family Court on August 2, 2024. The husband then moved the High Court in revision.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner-husband argued that the wife was not entitled to immediate maintenance payments because she already held a substantial sum of ₹20,00,000 from the sale of an asset he had financed. He contended that the Family Court’s refusal to set off this amount against his maintenance liability was erroneous.
The respondent-wife, while admitting to receiving the funds, stated they had been spent on the upkeep of herself and the minor child during 2020 and 2021.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court found that the quantum of ₹25,000 per month was reasonable; however, it identified a legal error in the lower courts’ treatment of the adjustment period. Justice Sharma clarified the finding on the commencement of the set-off:
“In view of the settled legal position that interim maintenance is to be granted from the date of filing of the application, the adjustment of the said amount must also be computed from the date of filing of the application and not from the date of separation.”
The Court noted that at the interim stage, it is not required to conclusively determine disputed facts, such as allegations of infidelity, which are “matters of trial.” The Court’s primary focus remained on balancing the financial circumstances to ensure a prima facie case for maintenance while accounting for the significant asset already with the wife.
Decision
The High Court directed that the ₹20,00,000 lump sum be adjusted against the monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 starting from October 23, 2020 (the date of filing the petition).
Based on this calculation, the Court determined that the respondent-wife and child would only become entitled to receive fresh monthly maintenance payments from June 24, 2027, once the adjusted sum is fully exhausted.
Additionally, citing the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court ordered that any maintenance paid in parallel proceedings under the PWDV Act must be set off against the dues in the Cr.P.C. case to prevent double recovery.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anurag Manohar Kankerwal v. Soham Rani
- Case Number: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 77/2024
- Judge: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Date: April 04, 2026
