The Delhi High Court modified a Family Court’s maintenance order, reducing the husband’s monthly maintenance payable to his estranged wife from ₹25,000 to ₹17,000. While holding that the husband’s income tax return for AY 2018–19 was the appropriate basis for determining his income, the Court ruled that awarding more than half of that income as maintenance was excessive.
The revision petition was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was examining a challenge to the Family Court’s judgment dated February 28, 2024, passed by the North-East District Family Court at the Karkardooma Courts in Delhi.
Background of the Case
The parties married on July 13, 2016. In March 2020, the wife moved the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹75,000. She alleged harassment and dowry-related demands, claiming that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home in October 2018. She further asserted that the husband was earning approximately ₹1.5 lakh per month from a jeans manufacturing business.
The husband denied the allegations, contending that the wife had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and that his financial means were modest. On August 18, 2021, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹14,000 per month and, upon conclusion of the evidence, passed a final order awarding maintenance of ₹25,000 per month.
Contentions of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband argued that the enhancement of maintenance from the interim amount of ₹14,000 to ₹25,000 was arbitrary. It was submitted that the interim maintenance had been determined on the basis of the husband’s Income Tax Return for AY 2018–19, which showed an annual income of ₹5,18,000, translating to about ₹43,167 per month. The counsel further contended that the husband’s business had since shut down and that his subsequent income tax returns reflected a decline in earnings.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent-wife argued that the petitioner had intentionally submitted an illegible copy of his bank statements to conceal his actual financial status, and that the steep drop reflected in his subsequent income tax returns was manipulated to evade his maintenance obligations.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s reliance on the ITR for AY 2018–19, noting that during cross-examination the petitioner had admitted that the return pertained to him and his proprietorship concern. The Court refused to place reliance on the subsequent ITRs and salary slips produced by the petitioner, observing that they were not credible and that no dependable evidence had been placed on record to establish a reduction in income or the existence of rental liabilities.
Addressing the petitioner’s objection to the enhancement of maintenance at the final stage, the Court explained that interim maintenance is awarded on a prima facie assessment of the material available at that point. The Court noted that a final determination under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is made only after both parties have led their evidence. Consequently, the Family Court was not exercising powers under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and the interim order did not constrain the Court while determining the final maintenance amount.
The Decision: Applying the ‘Annurita Vohra’ Principle
Accepting that the petitioner’s monthly income was approximately ₹43,189, derived from an annual income of ₹5,18,268, the High Court held that fixing maintenance at ₹25,000 per month was excessive. In this context, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma relied on the principle laid down in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004 SCC OnLine Del 192).
The Court reiterated that a husband’s net income is ordinarily apportioned into “units” or “shares,” with two shares allotted to the husband and one share to the wife in cases where there are no children or other dependants.
Applying this formula, the Court observed that on a monthly income of around ₹43,189, one share would amount to approximately ₹14,000–₹15,000. Granting maintenance of ₹25,000 per month would therefore result in the wife receiving more than half of the petitioner’s income as disclosed in the ITR.
In the interest of justice, the Court consequently reduced the maintenance amount to ₹17,000 per month.
