Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court’s order directing a husband to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife and their minor child. The Court held that an able-bodied man cannot escape his statutory obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by merely pleading financial hardship or unemployment. The Court observed that interim maintenance is a social justice measure meant to prevent destitution during the pendency of proceedings.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a married couple. Following their separation, the wife, having custody of their minor son, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance for herself and the child. She alleged domestic abuse and claimed that the husband derived substantial rental income from ancestral properties. On her application for interim relief, the Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month from the date of filing. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Family Court passed the impugned order solely based on the wife’s pleadings and income affidavit, without granting the husband a fair opportunity to present his defence. It was argued that the amount awarded was excessive and beyond his financial means, particularly as he was unemployed and dependent on his ailing mother, who was suffering from a terminal illness. The petitioner also asserted that the wife was highly educated, financially independent, and had suppressed key financial disclosures, including a bank account. He further pointed out that his request for adjournment was unfairly denied as his main counsel was unwell on the date of hearing, resulting in prejudice.
Contentions of the State:
The counsel for the State opposed the petition and defended the Family Court's order as well-reasoned and balanced. It was submitted that ₹50,000 was a reasonable sum considering the needs of the wife and minor child, and the standard of living they were used to. The State contended that the petitioner had sufficient time to file replies and supporting documents but repeatedly sought adjournments without valid justification. It was further argued that claims of unemployment were not substantiated, and that the duty to provide maintenance could not be avoided by citing income received in the name of other family members.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court noted that the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to prevent a dependent spouse and children from facing destitution or vagrancy during the pendency of legal proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the Court emphasized, “If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.”
The Court also referred to Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, reiterating the sacrosanct duty of a husband to support his wife and children.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s bald denials regarding his income, noting that no documentary evidence, such as income tax returns or bank statements, had been filed. It found that even though the petitioner claimed that rental income was being received by his mother, he had admitted to residing in a joint family and drawing some benefit from ancestral property. The Court observed that, “At the stage of interim maintenance, a detailed trial is neither warranted nor possible. A prima facie view must be taken based on affidavits and material available on record.”
Further, the Court noted that the minor child’s expenses were entirely borne by the wife, and the husband’s duty to maintain his child could not be negated merely because the wife was qualified to earn. The Court was also not convinced by the petitioner’s assertion that the respondent was earning ₹20,000 per month, stating that no proof was provided to support this claim, whereas the respondent had averred that she was relying on loans and borrowings to meet expenses.
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that the Family Court’s order did not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, the High Court refused to interfere under its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition, along with all pending applications, was dismissed. The Court upheld the interim maintenance award of ₹50,000 per month and clarified that the petitioner was free to present any additional material or financial details before the Family Court at a later stage, if warranted.
Case Title: X vs. Y
Case No: CRL.M.A. 2543-44/2025
Coram: Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Sumeet Beniwal, Tushar Rohmetra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Dhirendra Singh, Navdeep Mavi
