The Delhi High Court partly modified a Family Court’s maintenance order by reducing the monthly maintenance payable by the husband to his estranged wife from ₹25,000 to ₹17,000. The Court held that the husband’s income tax return for the assessment year 2018–19 was the correct basis for assessing his income and observed that directing payment of more than half of that income as maintenance was excessive.
The revision petition was decided by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who was hearing a challenge to the Family Court’s judgment dated February 28, 2024, passed by the North-East District Family Court at the Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on July 13, 2016. In March 2020, the wife approached the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹75,000. She alleged that she was subjected to harassment and dowry demands and claimed that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in October 2018. She further stated that the husband was earning around ₹1.5 lakh per month from a jeans manufacturing business.
The husband refuted these allegations, asserting that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and that his financial capacity was limited. On August 18, 2021, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹14,000 per month and, after completion of the trial, passed a final order granting maintenance of ₹25,000 per month.
Contentions of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner-husband contended that the increase in maintenance from the interim amount of ₹14,000 to ₹25,000 was arbitrary and unjustified. It was argued that the interim maintenance had been fixed on the basis of the husband’s Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2018–19, which reflected an annual income of ₹5,18,000, amounting to approximately ₹43,167 per month. The counsel further submitted that the husband’s business had subsequently closed and that his later income tax returns showed a downturn in his earnings.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the petitioner had deliberately filed illegible bank statements to mask his true financial position, and that the sharp decline shown in his subsequent income tax returns was engineered to avoid his maintenance liability.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decision to rely on the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2018–19, noting that during cross-examination the petitioner had admitted that the return related to him and his proprietorship firm. The Court declined to place reliance on the subsequent income tax returns and salary slips produced by the petitioner, observing that they lacked credibility and that no reliable evidence had been placed on record to demonstrate any reduction in income or the existence of rental liabilities.
Dealing with the petitioner’s objection to the enhancement of maintenance at the final stage, the Court clarified that interim maintenance is granted on a prima facie evaluation of the material available at the relevant time. It observed that a final determination under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is made only after both parties have led evidence. Accordingly, the Family Court was not exercising powers under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and the interim order did not fetter the Court’s discretion while fixing the final maintenance amount.
The Decision: Applying the ‘Annurita Vohra’ Principle
Accepting that the petitioner’s monthly income was about ₹43,189, based on an annual income of ₹5,18,268, the High Court held that the fixation of maintenance at ₹25,000 per month was excessive. In arriving at this conclusion, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma placed reliance on the principle enunciated in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004 SCC OnLine Del 192).
The Court reiterated that a husband’s net income is generally divided into “units” or “shares,” with two shares allocated to the husband and one to the wife in situations where there are no children or other dependants. Applying this principle, the Court noted that on a monthly income of approximately ₹43,189, a single share would work out to around ₹14,000–₹15,000. A maintenance award of ₹25,000 per month would, therefore, result in the wife receiving more than half of the petitioner’s disclosed income.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Court reduced the maintenance payable to ₹17,000 per month.