DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS EMPLOYABILITY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT A WIFE’S CLAIM TO MAINTENANCE

Introduction
The case of A v. State and Anr. CRL.REV.P. 210/2018, CRL.M.A. 4612/2018, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 13 October 2025, was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. The Revision Petition was filed by the husband challenging concurrent Orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court granting interim maintenance to his estranged wife and their two minor children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). At the core of the dispute lay questions of the husband’s true income, the wife’s employability and the limits of revisional scrutiny over interim maintenance orders.
Factual Background
The Petitioner-husband married Respondent No. 2 on 11 November 2017 in Delhi in accordance with Muslim rites and ceremonies. Two children were born from this wedlock and both have remained in the custody of the Wife after the parties started living separately due to marital discord. The Wife thereafter instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act and sought interim maintenance for herself and the children, leading to the Trial Court’s Order dated 7 October 2017 awarding ₹12,000 per month.
In their income affidavits, the Husband claimed that he was a 10th-class dropout working as a helper at S.T. Metal Display in Kanti Nagar, drawing a salary of ₹8,000 per month. The Wife, however, asserted that he was running a business from premises at Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, earning around ₹2,00,000 per month, while she herself, though a B.A. graduate with a diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education, had no present independent income.
Contentions of the Parties
Before the High Court, the Husband argued that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court misread the material on record and overestimated his earning capacity. He contended that his income was only ₹15,500 per month, that the Trial Court had ignored his income affidavit and that the wife, being educated and professionally qualified, was capable of earning and should contribute to the upkeep of the family instead of depending entirely on maintenance. He further submitted that he had divorced the Wife, had since remarried and was now maintaining a family of five, including two minor children from the second marriage, making the interim maintenance order financially unsustainable for him.
The Wife, appearing in person, maintained that she had no independent source of income and was entirely dependent on maintenance and help from her father and other family members. She pointed out that both children, aged 17 and 13, were studying and their educational and living expenses imposed a substantial financial burden, while the husband had not meaningfully contributed to their upbringing. She also alleged that the Husband was concealing his true income and misrepresenting his financial position and that even the ₹12,000 awarded i.e. ₹4,000 each for herself and the two children, was barely sufficient for basic sustenance in Delhi.
Court’s Decision
The High Court examined the reasoning adopted by the courts below and found no perversity warranting interference in Revision. The Trial Court had directed the Protection Officer to visit both the address disclosed by the Husband and the premises mentioned by the Wife; the Officer found the Husband at the alleged business premises in Gandhi Nagar, whereas the Kanti Nagar address given by him turned out to be residential. On this basis, the Trial Court held that the Husband had attempted to manipulate facts to evade his maintenance obligation, assessed his monthly income at ₹25,000 and fixed interim maintenance of ₹12,000 per month for the Wife and two children.
Justice Narula endorsed the approach that, where income is not fully disclosed or documentary proof is incomplete, courts may resort to reasonable inference based on lifestyle, standard of living and surrounding circumstances rather than a purely arithmetic calculation. Relying on precedents, the Court observed that the quantum awarded was in fact minimal and only ensured basic sustenance. The Court also upheld the Appellate Court’s view that an appeal does not automatically stay an order of interim maintenance and that a litigant who refuses to pay arrears cannot seek indulgence; the dismissal of the Appeal for non-compliance was thus found justified.
The argument that the Wife was disentitled to maintenance because she was educated was rejected at the interim stage. Referring to authoritative precedents, the Court reiterated that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid his statutory duty by invoking his wife’s theoretical employability or pleading limited means. The relevant test is whether the wife has sufficient independent income to maintain herself and the child in a manner commensurate with their status, which was clearly not the case here. Consequently, the Revision Petition was dismissed and the interim maintenance order allowed to stand.
Conclusion
The Judgment underscores several key themes in contemporary maintenance jurisprudence. It affirms that interim maintenance is a protective, provisional measure aimed at securing basic survival during litigation and does not finally determine parties’ rights, which remain open to reconsideration at trial on full evidence. It also reinforces that courts are entitled to draw adverse inferences where a spouse suppresses income or furnishes misleading particulars and may estimate earnings realistically rather than mechanically.
Equally important is the Court’s clear rejection of the notion that educational qualifications alone absolve a husband of liability to maintain his wife and children. By insisting on compliance with maintenance orders as a precondition for appellate consideration, the decision sends a strong signal against using appellate or revisional proceedings as a tactic to delay or dilute relief. Collectively, the Judgment strengthens the enforcement of maintenance rights under the DV Act and reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to shielding economically vulnerable spouses and children from destitution during protracted matrimonial disputes.

YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Child Custody Laws India 2025 | Mother vs Father Rights Explained | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below: