.webp)
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order directing a husband to pay ₹15,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance to his wife, holding that a long period of separation by itself does not end the marital relationship or automatically take away a wife’s right to seek maintenance.
Justice Madhu Jain passed the order on September 8, 2026, while dismissing a revision petition challenging the Family Court’s interim maintenance direction. The Court, however, clarified that the disputed questions between the parties would have to be examined by the Family Court on the basis of evidence and financial documents.
Background of the Case
The parties were married according to Hindu rites in April 1975 and have three children, all of whom are now major, married and independently settled.
According to the wife, she had been living separately since around 1985 after being forced to leave the matrimonial home. She later moved to Delhi and worked to support herself. She claimed that she did not have sufficient independent income or property and sought maintenance of ₹40,000 per month.
The husband disputed this account. His case was that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in February/March 1985 and had remained separate for more than four decades. He also questioned the delay in seeking maintenance and pointed to differences in her financial affidavits regarding her employment, income and expenditure.
The Family Court had nevertheless directed payment of ₹15,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance from April 18, 2026.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that there was no decree of divorce between the parties. Therefore, the marriage continued to subsist in the eyes of law.
The Court observed:
“The mere fact that the parties have been living separately for a considerable period does not, by itself, bring the marriage to an end or extinguish the wife’s claim for maintenance.”
The Court also considered the husband’s argument that the wife had deserted him. It held that the circumstances in which she started living separately were seriously disputed. Whether she left voluntarily, had sufficient reason to live separately, or whether the separation was by mutual consent would require examination of the pleadings and, if necessary, evidence.
The Court further held that the delay of several decades in seeking maintenance could not, by itself, operate as a complete bar to the claim. Its effect would have to be assessed along with the explanation offered and the other material on record.
₹15,000 Maintenance Order Left Undisturbed
The High Court also noted that the husband was a retired Army personnel receiving pension. It said questions concerning his pension, financial responsibilities and the appropriate amount of maintenance could be examined by the Family Court using income affidavits, bank statements, pension documents and other relevant material.
The Court clarified that the ₹15,000 payment was only ad-interim, meaning a temporary arrangement during the proceedings, and could be varied after the complete financial material of both parties was considered.
Decision
The Delhi High Court found no ground to interfere with the Family Court’s April 18, 2026 order and dismissed the revision petition along with the pending application.
The Family Court was directed to proceed with the matter independently and consider the affidavits, documents and objections of both parties while deciding the further quantum of maintenance.
Case Details:
Case Title: X and Y
Case Number: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 523/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27715/2026
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
