The Delhi High Court has enhanced the interim maintenance awarded to a petitioner-wife, ruling that in cases where a husband’s income is contested and undocumented, the assessment must be based on the minimum wages applicable in the state where he resides and works, rather than a default application of Delhi’s rates.
In the judgment pronounced on January 5, 2026, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the revision petition in the case of Petitioner v. Respondent (CRL.REV.P. 763/2024), setting aside the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara. The Court enhanced the monthly interim maintenance from ₹2,500 to ₹3,500.
Case Background
The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband were married on June 27, 2021, according to Muslim rites. The petitioner alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry and was forcibly turned out of the matrimonial home on June 10, 2022. She approached the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance.
The petitioner claimed that her husband was a man of means, working as a teacher in a private school, providing private tuition, and running a grocery shop, with a cumulative estimated income of ₹70,000 per month. She asserted that she was unemployed and dependent on her family.
The respondent denied these claims, stating he worked with an NGO, The Sensorium Learning Center in Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh, earning only ₹10,000 per month. He further claimed that the petitioner was working as a nursery teacher and earning ₹10,000 per month.
On March 6, 2024, the Family Court awarded ₹2,500 per month as interim maintenance, relying on the respondent’s affidavit where he claimed an income of ₹10,000.
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order, arguing that the awarded amount was insufficient. Her counsel contended that the husband’s claim of earning only ₹10,000 was unreliable, noting that he had placed on record bank statements for only a limited six-month period. It was pointed out that a credit entry of ₹7,500 appeared in his account, contradicting his claim of a fixed ₹10,000 salary. The petitioner argued that the husband’s income should be assessed based on his educational qualifications (graduate) and minimum wages.
The respondent’s counsel maintained that the wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily and was capable of maintaining herself. He reiterated that he supported eight family members on a meager income of ₹10,000 and resided in a small 20 sq. yard house.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court rejected the husband’s contention regarding the wife’s employment. Justice Sharma observed:
“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.”
Regarding the husband’s income, the Court found his claim of earning ₹10,000 unsatisfactory, noting it was “even lower than the minimum wages payable to a skilled person,” given that he is a graduate. The Court also noted the selective filing of bank statements.
The Court relied on the principles laid down in the recent decision of Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar (2025 SCC OnLine Del 7272), which cautioned courts against mechanically applying minimum wages. The judgment emphasized that courts must:
- Identify the correct State.
- Determine the appropriate skill category.
- Note the effective date of the minimum wage schedule.
Applying these principles, the Court noted:
“It is an admitted position that the respondent is residing and working in Uttar Pradesh. The inadvertent practice of applying Delhi’s minimum wages merely because the proceedings are before a court in Delhi… ought to be avoided.”
Decision
The Court determined that at the relevant time, the minimum wages for a graduate/skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh were approximately ₹13,200 per month. Consequently, the Court assessed the respondent’s income at ₹13,200 per month.
Justice Sharma concluded that the previous award was on the lower side. The Court ordered:
“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…”
The respondent was directed to pay the enhanced amount from the date of the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., with arrears to be cleared within three months. The Court clarified that these findings are limited to interim maintenance and will not influence the final trial.
