The Delhi High Court has stepped in to revise an interim maintenance order, holding that a woman left without income cannot be expected to survive on an unreasonably low amount. Enhancing the relief granted by a Family Court, the High Court raised the monthly interim maintenance payable to a deserted wife from ₹2,500 to ₹3,500.
The decision was delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while hearing a revision petition filed by the wife challenging the adequacy of the amount earlier fixed.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised in June 2021 according to Muslim rites. The wife told the court that soon after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry-related harassment. In June 2022, she was allegedly assaulted and forced to leave her matrimonial home.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail in Red Sanders Smuggling Case Linked to Forest Crime
Claiming that she had studied only up to Class 11 and had no job, property, or independent income, the woman approached the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for maintenance to wives who are unable to maintain themselves.
She asserted that her husband was financially well-off, alleging that he worked as a teacher, gave private tuitions, and had other sources of income. The husband denied these claims and maintained that he earned only about ₹10,000 a month while working with an NGO in Uttar Pradesh.
In March 2024, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹2,500 per month, prompting the wife to move the High Court.
What the Wife Argued
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that ₹2,500 was far too little to meet even her basic needs. Her counsel contended that the Family Court had failed to properly assess the husband’s earning capacity.
It was pointed out that the husband, a graduate by qualification, had not produced complete bank statements and had filed records for only a limited period. The wife’s side urged the court to draw an adverse inference, saying the income disclosure was selective and unreliable.
Husband’s Stand
The husband opposed the plea for enhancement. He claimed that the wife was working as a nursery teacher and earning on her own, though he did not produce any documents to support this claim.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Refuses Bail to Woman Accused of Handling Drug Syndicate Finances Under MCOCA
He also said that he lived in a small house with several family members and had the responsibility of supporting his parents. According to him, the Family Court’s order was fair and required no interference.
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, the High Court noted that there was no proof at all to show that the wife was earning.
“A mere bald assertion that the wife is working, without any supporting material, cannot be accepted at this stage,” the court observed.
On the husband’s income, the court found his claim of earning ₹10,000 per month difficult to accept. Justice Sharma pointed out that this figure was even below the minimum wages payable to a skilled person, especially when the husband was admittedly a graduate.
The bench also took note of the incomplete bank statements filed by the husband. There was no consistent monthly credit reflecting a fixed salary, which weakened his case further.
Relying on settled principles, the court held that in such situations, income can be assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the state where the person works.
Court Decision
Applying the minimum wage rates prevailing in Uttar Pradesh at the relevant time, the High Court assessed the husband’s monthly income at about ₹13,200.
Considering this figure, the status of the parties, and the fact that the wife had no independent source of income, the court concluded that the earlier amount of ₹2,500 was “on the lower side.”
Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the interim maintenance to ₹3,500 per month, payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application. Any amount already paid will be adjusted. The court also directed that arrears be cleared within three months.
The judge clarified that these observations are limited to interim maintenance and will not affect the final decision in the pending trial before the Family Court.
Case Title: X & Y
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 763/2024
