The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, reduced the interim maintenance granted to a wife from Rs 30,000 to Rs 25,000 per month, holding that family courts cannot focus solely on the husband’s income while fixing maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The Court emphasized that cumulative variables—such as the wife’s educational qualifications, independent income, available accommodation, and the husband’s financial responsibility towards their children—must be given due weightage.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on November 2, 1995, and two children were born out of the wedlock. Following marital discord, the wife filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on April 9, 2021.
On January 15, 2022, the Family Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month to the wife. Subsequently, vide an order dated June 5, 2024, the Family Court fixed the interim maintenance at Rs 30,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the husband filed a revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, seeking to set aside the order.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the husband submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate the factual context and status of the parties. He submitted that:
- Both children reside with the husband, who is solely responsible for their financial needs and education, including their elder daughter pursuing an expensive MBBS course.
- The wife holds an MBA degree in Finance and qualifications in Astrology, making her fully capable of earning for herself.
- The wife earns Rs 10,450 per month as rental income and Rs 4,400 per month as interest from fixed deposits.
- The wife resides alone in a 3-bedroom flat exclusively purchased by the husband.
- The husband has financial liabilities arising from multiple loans that need repayment.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi and the Delhi High Court decision in Bharat Hegde v. Smt. Saroj Hegde, counsel submitted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution, requiring courts to assess independent income, reasonable wants, liabilities, and paying capacity before determining quantum.
Conversely, counsel for the wife submitted that the Family Court rightly relied on the husband’s Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2022–2023, which reflected an income exceeding Rs 63,00,000 from his cargo business. She contended that the order was passed after due consideration of all documents on record and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which reiterated eleven key factors laid down in Bharat Hegde v. Smt. Saroj Hegde for determining maintenance, including the status of parties, independent income, liabilities, and payment capacity.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (which referenced Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat), reiterating the core purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.:
“The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ‘Constitution’). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves.”
Analyzing the uncontroverted facts, the High Court noted that both children reside with the husband, who single-handedly finances their education; the wife resides in a 3-bedroom flat owned by the husband; she holds an MBA (Finance) and Astrology qualifications; she earns rental and FD interest income; and the husband was voluntarily paying Rs 20,000 per month prior to the ad-interim order.
The High Court observed that while the Family Court noted these factors, it failed to give them due weightage and tilted solely towards the income of the husband.
Highlighting the need for balance, Justice Banerjee observed:
“Although this Court is mindful that the petitioner is a man of means, however, the Court granting interim maintenance, cannot be oblivious of the cumulative variables which ought to be considered, especially since a balance has to be struck between the rights and liabilities of the applicant and non-applicant as also the primary intent of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be circumvented and/ or not given effect to.”
Decision
Holding that judicial interference was warranted, the High Court modified the Family Court’s order. The interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month was reduced to Rs 25,000 per month, effective from the date of filing of the application (April 12, 2021). The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case No.: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024, CRL.M.A. 35886/2024
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date: August 11, 2026
