1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has modified a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹25,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, reducing the amount to ₹17,000 per month. The Court held that although the petitioner’s 2018–19 income tax return (ITR) legitimately reflected his income and was rightly relied upon by the Family Court, the final computation of maintenance exceeded a reasonable share of his income. Applying the “income-sharing” principle recognised in earlier Delhi High Court jurisprudence, the Court concluded that maintenance should be proportionate and cannot exceed a fair division of resources. The Court therefore upheld the finding of income but recalibrated the quantum to ensure equity.
2. Facts
The parties were married in July 2016. In March 2020, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging dowry harassment, physical violence, and unlawful demands of ₹5 lakhs and a car. She alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home in 2018 and again denied re-entry in 2019. She claimed her husband earned around ₹1,50,000 per month from a jeans-manufacturing business and sought maintenance of ₹75,000. The husband denied all allegations, asserting that she had voluntarily left the marriage. He claimed no dowry was given, no cruelty was committed, and that he had limited income. Interim maintenance of ₹14,000 was awarded in 2021 after assessing his income as ₹40,000–₹45,000 per month. Following evidence, the Family Court enhanced maintenance to ₹25,000 in the final judgment.
3. Issues
The key issue before the High Court was whether the Family Court correctly calculated the petitioner’s income and whether the enhancement from ₹14,000 to ₹25,000 in the final judgment under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was justified. Secondary issues included whether later years’ ITRs showing reduced income could be considered credible, whether the petitioner’s evidence of employment and expenses was reliable, and whether a drastic increase in maintenance without proof of change of circumstances was permissible.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that he studied only up to Class 10, had limited earning capacity, and that the Family Court assessed his income wrongly. He contended that the interim maintenance order was based on the 2018–19 ITR, and in the absence of fresh documentary proof by the wife, the Family Court could not enhance maintenance. He emphasised that subsequent ITRs showed drastically lower incomes and that the business reflected in the earlier ITR was actually operated by his father. He claimed he was now disowned by his family and unable to restart his business. He also argued that under Section 127 Cr.P.C., enhancement requires proof of changed circumstances, and no such proof was brought by the wife. Thus, the award of ₹25,000 was arbitrary, excessive, and imposed an impossible financial burden.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The wife’s counsel contended that the petitioner’s 2018–19 ITR—showing income of roughly ₹43,000 per month—was undisputedly genuine and filed by him as proprietor. She argued that he had deliberately tried to hide financial information by submitting an illegible bank statement; even the visible entries showed large deposits, including payments of ₹1,50,000 and ₹1,10,000, contradicting his claim of meagre income. She asserted that the sudden income drop in later ITRs was fabricated to evade financial responsibility. The wife submitted that she had no independent income and had lived with her parents for years while the petitioner had shirked his legal duty. The Family Court’s decision, she argued, was equitable and well-reasoned.
6. Analysis of the law
Section 125 Cr.P.C. mandates financial support to a spouse unable to maintain herself. Interim maintenance is granted based on a prima facie assessment, while final maintenance is based on complete evidence. The High Court emphasised that an interim award does not restrict the Family Court from determining a higher final amount because the latter is based on full evidence, not Section 127 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. The Court examined documents such as ITRs, bank statements, tenancy agreements, and employment certificates but found that the husband had not credibly substantiated claims of lower income. Under maintenance law, courts must consider actual earning capacity, standard of living during marriage, reasonable needs of the dependent spouse, and verifiable financial records. The guiding principle is fairness: the husband must contribute a reasonable proportion of his income, but not so much as to leave him unable to sustain himself.
7. Precedent analysis
While the judgment references only one precedent expressly—Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004)—its principles are central. That decision held that income should be divided into notional “shares,” typically two for the husband and one for the wife when there are no children or other dependents. This framework aims to achieve a balanced distribution of resources. Applying this principle, the High Court reasoned that one-third of the petitioner’s income (approximately ₹14,000–₹15,000) would ordinarily fall to the wife. Even accounting for inflation and rising living costs, ₹25,000 per month far exceeded the proportion permitted by the established formula. Thus, the Family Court’s award was inconsistent with precedent and required correction.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the Family Court correctly relied on the 2018–19 ITR because the petitioner admitted its authenticity and failed to prove the later ITRs were more reliable. The salary certificate was undated and unverifiable, and the rent agreement was neither renewed nor supported by proof of payment—weakening the petitioner’s claims of reduced income. However, the Court held that awarding more than half of his monthly income (₹25,000 out of roughly ₹43,000) was disproportionate and exceeded the fair-share formula. The Court emphasised that maintenance must ensure dignity for the dependent spouse without crippling the payer financially. After applying mathematical apportionment and accounting for inflation and fairness, the Court fixed maintenance at ₹17,000 per month as the appropriate figure.
9. Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Family Court’s reliance on the petitioner’s ITR and rejected allegations of miscalculation or improper reliance on incomplete evidence. However, the quantum of maintenance was deemed excessive. By applying the “unit share” principle from established jurisprudence, the Court modified the award to ₹17,000 per month. The order clarified that amounts already paid would be adjusted and affirmed the need for evidence-based, equitable maintenance assessments. The decision therefore balances the wife’s right to financial support with the petitioner’s realistic earning capacity.
10. Implications
This judgment reinforces that interim maintenance is not a ceiling and that Family Courts may reassess income during final determination under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It also clarifies that the burden lies on the husband to substantiate claims of reduced income through reliable, verifiable documents. Fabricated or incomplete financial disclosures will not be entertained. The ruling strengthens the legal principle that maintenance must be proportionate, evidence-backed, and consistent with prior income patterns. It also underscores that exaggerated reductions in ITR filings will be scrutinised critically. The decision is likely to influence maintenance litigation by reaffirming the importance of ITR credibility and the Annurita Vohra share-based formula.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004 SCC OnLine Del 192)
Holding: Introduced the “unit shares” formula—typically two shares for the husband and one for the wife in a no-children scenario.
Application here: The Court applied this formula to conclude that approximately one-third of the husband’s proven income should go to the wife, subject to reasonable adjustment. This reasoning directly led to the reduction of maintenance from ₹25,000 to ₹17,000.
No other precedent is cited in the judgment.
FAQs
1. Why did the Delhi High Court reduce the maintenance amount?
Because the Family Court had awarded more than half of the husband’s proven income, which exceeded the equitable proportion recognised in Delhi High Court precedents. The High Court recalculated maintenance using the share-based formula, fixing it at ₹17,000.
2. Can maintenance be increased at the final stage even if interim maintenance was lower?
Yes. Interim maintenance is based on prima facie material, whereas final maintenance is determined after complete evidence. The Family Court is not bound by the interim amount when passing a final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3. Do later ITRs showing reduced income help in lowering maintenance?
Only if credible. In this case, the alleged reduction lacked authenticity, so the Court relied on the earlier admitted ITR showing higher income. Fabricated or doubtful ITRs carry no weight.