The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, delivered a common Judgment in two cross-petitions filed by estranged spouses Divya Sharma and Mudit Vashistha. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, after hearing marathon arguments from both sides, refused to interfere with an earlier Family Court order that had granted ₹25,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife and their young child.
Background
The couple married in January 2019 at Chhatarpur Farms, Delhi. A son was born the following year, but the relationship quickly soured. By April 2020, the wife left the matrimonial home, alleging harassment and cruelty. In 2021, she approached the Family Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, demanding ₹2 lakh per month in maintenance. The Family Court, however, settled on ₹25,000 as an interim amount.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders Husband to Pay ₹10 Lakh for Daughter’s Marriage After Upholding Divorce
Unhappy with the figure, both sides approached the High Court - Divya Sharma sought enhancement, while Mudit Vashistha demanded reduction, claiming the order was beyond his means.
Courtroom Arguments
The wife's counsel insisted that ₹25,000 was a pittance compared to the husband's lifestyle. "He owns properties worth crores, earns rental income, and has shown lavish spending like a European honeymoon," they argued. They pointed to his 2018–19 income tax return showing more than ₹10 lakh annual income.
The husband's side, on the other hand, painted a very different picture. His lawyers said he earned just ₹14,000 a month as a practicing lawyer and had no real ownership of the properties. They claimed even the Fortuner car and honeymoon trip were financed by his father. They alleged the wife was well-educated and "choosing not to work" despite being capable of supporting herself.
Read also:- Himachal High Court Partly Allows Children's Plea, Grants Enhanced Maintenance to Son Till 2020
Court Observations
Justice Sharma appeared unconvinced by the husband’s version. "It does not appeal that respondent is having income of ₹14,000/- per month only," the bench observed.
The court noted how his income sharply dropped from over ₹10 lakh in 2018–19 to just ₹1.8 lakh in 2020–21, suspiciously after the separation. The judge remarked that such transfers and reduced figures "indicate a deliberate attempt to understate financial capacity."
On the wife’s employability, the court was clear:
"The distinction between capacity to earn and actual earning has been drawn by the Supreme Court. The wife, pursuing her CA qualification while caring for a five-year-old, cannot realistically be expected to earn immediately."
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Allows Fair Price Shop Allottee to Challenge Appeal Order Without Cancelling It
The Decision
In the end, the High Court backed the Family Court's calculation. It held that ₹25,000 per month struck a fair balance between the child's educational and upbringing expenses and the husband's financial ability. The petitions of both husband and wife were dismissed.
Justice Sharma directed the husband to clear any arrears of maintenance within two months but clarified that this was only an interim arrangement, subject to final evidence during trial.
With that, the courtroom drama ended with neither side fully satisfied, but the High Court left no room for doubt - the ₹25,000 order stays.
Case Title:- Mudit Vashistha vs. Divya Sharma & Anr.
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 750/2024
