The Delhi High Court revised a Family Court’s maintenance order, lowering the husband’s monthly payment to his estranged wife from ₹25,000 to ₹17,000, holding that although the husband’s ITR for AY 2018–19 was the correct basis for assessing income, granting more than half of it as maintenance was excessive Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard the revision petition challenging the Family Court’s judgment dated February 28, 2024, delivered by the North-East District Family Court at 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 harassment and dowry demands, stating that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in October 2018, and claimed that the husband earned around ₹1.5 lakh per month from a jeans manufacturing business.
The husband refused 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 evidence, passed a final order granting ₹25,000 per month.
Contentions of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that the increase in maintenance from the interim sum of ₹14,000 to ₹25,000 was arbitrary. It was argued that the initial calculation was based on the husband’s Income Tax Return for AY 2018–19, reflecting an annual income of ₹5,18,000 (approximately ₹43,167 per month). The counsel further contended that the husband’s business had subsequently closed and that later ITRs demonstrated a fall in his income.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-wife contended that the petitioner had deliberately produced an illegible copy of his bank statements to obscure his true financial position, asserting that the sharp decline shown in subsequent ITRs was manipulated to avoid payment of maintenance.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s reliance on the ITR for AY 2018–19, noting that the petitioner had admitted during cross-examination that the return related to him and his proprietorship. The Court declined to accept the subsequent ITRs and salary slips produced by the petitioner, observing that they lacked credibility and that no reliable evidence was furnished to substantiate a decline in income or rental obligations.
While dealing with the petitioner’s challenge to the increase in maintenance from the interim stage, the Court explained that interim maintenance is granted on a prima facie evaluation of the material available at that stage. The final determination under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court noted, is made only after both parties have led evidence. Consequently, the Family Court was not exercising powers under Section 127 Cr.P.C., and the interim order did not bind the Court while fixing the final 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 fixing maintenance at ₹25,000 was excessive. In doing so, Justice Sharma placed reliance on the principle enunciated in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004 SCC OnLine Del 192).
The Court noted that a husband’s net income is ordinarily to be divided into “units” or “shares,” with two shares allocated to the husband and one share to the wife in cases where there are no children or other dependants.
Applying this principle, the Court observed that on a monthly income of approximately ₹43,189, one share would work out to about ₹14,000–₹15,000, and that awarding ₹25,000 per month would effectively grant the wife more than half of the petitioner’s income as reflected in the ITR.
Holding that the ends of justice would be served, the Court accordingly reduced the maintenance to ₹17,000 per month.