Recently, the Delhi High Court modified a Family Court order which had directed a husband to pay ₹25,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife and minor child. The High Court reduced the amount to ₹17,500, holding that maintenance must be fixed in a balanced manner, adequately supporting the wife and child while accounting for the husband’s financial obligations.
Brief Facts:
The case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between Ankush Kumar Parashar and his wife, Sapna @ Mona, who married in 2017. The couple has one son, born in 2018, currently residing with the mother. Alleging harassment and ill-treatment, the wife left the matrimonial home and later filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, seeking monthly maintenance.
The Family Court, after considering the pleadings, had awarded her and the child a consolidated maintenance of ₹25,000 per month, based on an assumption of the husband’s monthly income. Aggrieved, the husband challenged the order before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner-husband argued that the Family Court erred in assuming his salary to be ₹50,000 per month, whereas his actual take-home salary was only ₹36,000 after deductions. He submitted that he was also paying EMIs for a home loan, rent, and was financially responsible for his elderly parents.
It was further submitted that the wife is a graduate (B.Com.), capable of earning, and had been independently engaged in tailoring and boutique work. Hence, she was not entitled to claim excessive maintenance. The husband maintained that he had never refused to support his wife and child, but the quantum ordered was beyond his means. The petitioner also relied on various precedents, including Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, contending that if a wife leaves the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, she cannot claim maintenance, and that maintenance should not cripple the husband financially.
Observation of the Court:
The High Court carefully examined whether the wife had deserted the husband without reasonable cause and whether the quantum of maintenance was justified. On the first issue, the Court noted that the wife had specifically alleged harassment, dowry demands, and even attempts to terminate her pregnancy. She also claimed that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment. Crucially, these assertions remained unchallenged as the husband did not cross-examine her nor produce any independent evidence in support of his claims.
The Court observed, “There is nothing to show that the wife had separated without any reason or had deserted the Petitioner. Therefore, it has been rightly concluded that the Petitioner has failed to prove that his wife was living separately without any sufficient cause".
On the quantum of maintenance, the Court held that while the Family Court had assumed the husband’s income to be ₹50,000, the material on record, including his bank statements, reflected a monthly earning of around ₹40,000. Taking into account his housing loan, expenses towards aged parents, and personal liabilities, the High Court ruled that the awarded sum of ₹25,000 was disproportionate.
The Court added, “The maintenance amount must be determined in a balanced manner; it should be one that ensures adequate support for the wife and child, while also taking into account the Petitioner’s financial obligations towards home loan, expenses and responsibility towards parents".
The decision of the Court:
In light of these findings, the High Court modified the Family Court’s order. Instead of ₹25,000, it directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹7,500 per month to the child, effective from the date of filing of the maintenance petition. The Court clarified that this arrangement would continue until the wife’s remarriage or her lifetime, and for the child until he attains majority.
The Court further left open the husband’s right to seek modification under Section 127 CrPC in case of future changes in his financial circumstances.
Case Title: Ankush Kumar Parashar vs. Sapna @ Mona and Anr.
Case No.: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 131/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8765/2025
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
