The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband cannot evade his legal obligation to financially support his wife and minor child living with her merely because another child from the marriage is in his custody.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while deciding a revision petition against an interim maintenance order, emphasised that proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are meant to ensure immediate financial support and should not turn into a detailed “mini trial” at the interim stage.
Background of the case
The dispute arose from a couple living separately since January 2021. While the son remained with the husband, the daughter stayed with the wife, who sought maintenance citing lack of independent income and the need to live in rented accommodation.
The husband claimed he earned only ₹13,500 per month and alleged that his wife had her own income. However, the Family Court found inconsistencies in his financial disclosures, noting spending patterns that suggested higher earnings and links to property dealings. It assessed his income at ₹60,000 and ordered interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month.
High Court’s observations
The High Court clarified that interim maintenance proceedings are limited to a prima facie assessment of financial capacity and need. It reiterated that the objective of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent destitution and ensure immediate relief.
Rejecting the husband’s key argument, the Court held that shared custody does not dilute the responsibility of maintenance.
“The responsibility of maintenance does not stand divided merely because each parent has custody of one child,” the Court observed.
However, it noted that custody arrangements may be considered while deciding the quantum of maintenance, not for denying it altogether.
Income assessment and ruling
The Court found no evidence to support claims that the wife had independent earnings. It also upheld the Family Court’s reliance on circumstantial indicators—such as expenditure patterns and bank transactions—to assess the husband’s income, especially in cases involving informal or unstructured income sources.
While agreeing that the husband had likely concealed his true income, the High Court revised the estimated monthly earnings to ₹50,000. It accordingly reduced the interim maintenance to ₹17,500 per month for the wife and daughter.
Final directions
The Court directed that any pending arrears be cleared as per the Family Court’s instructions and clarified that its observations were only for interim relief and would not affect the final outcome of the case.
