In a significant ruling on interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court dealt with cross-petitions filed by both husband and wife challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. While the husband argued that the amount was excessive, the wife contended that it was inadequate considering his actual financial capacity.
The dispute arose after the parties separated in 2016, with the wife seeking maintenance under both Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. After evaluating the material on record, the High Court took a balanced approach. It neither accepted the husband’s minimal income claim nor the wife’s allegation of extremely high earnings, but instead assessed his income pragmatically.
“12. Thus, the responsibility of their day-to-day care, upbringing and education is being borne by the wife. Secondly, this Court notes that the husband has alleged that the wife is earning about ₹30,000/- per month by giving tuition. However, no document or material has been placed on record by him to substantiate this allegation. In the absence of any supporting material, such assertion cannot be accepted at this stage. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, that the income of the wife is to be treated as „Nil‟ for the purpose of deciding interim maintenance.”
“14. Thus, at this stage, while the allegation of the wife regarding the extremely high income of the husband remains unsubstantiated, the claim of the husband that he is earning only ₹12,000/- per month also requires to be examined cautiously in light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case.”
“17. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the observations of the learned Appellate Court that the husband appears to have withheld material information regarding his actual income and financial status. The material placed on record therefore prima facie indicates that the husband has not made a full and candid disclosure of his financial position.”
“18. Considering the fact that the husband claims to be earning only ₹12,000/- per month, which is even below the minimum wages applicable in Delhi, this Court finds no ground to accept such a claim at this stage. “
Decision
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both cross-petitions and upheld the Appellate Court’s order granting total interim maintenance of ₹13,000 per month to the wife and two minor children.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that:
- The maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) would be adjusted against the amount granted under the Domestic Violence Act.
- The findings were purely interim in nature and subject to final adjudication after trial.
- Importantly, the Court reiterated that suppression of income invites adverse inference, and courts may assess earning capacity even in the absence of full disclosure.
Thus, the judgment reinforces the principle that financial responsibility toward dependents cannot be avoided through incomplete or misleading disclosures.
Citation : 2026 DHC 2819
Other Sources :
Index of Maintenance judgements is here.
Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150
