Saurabh Katiyar v. State G.N.C.T. of Delhi

4.4. That the Family Court also overlooked the settled legal requirement under Section 125 CrPC that before granting interim maintenance, it must determine whether the husband has neglected or refused to maintain the wife and whether the wife is unable to maintain herself. These essential findings were not made.

4.5. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2’s affidavits of assets, liabilities, and expenditure contained contradictory and unsubstantiated claims. In the first affidavit, she stated that she resides with her parents and claimed expenses of ₹55,000 for herself and ₹25,000 for the child. In the second, she increased these to ₹62,000 and ₹34,000 respectively and claimed to have lived in a rented Noida flat since June 2019 with a rent of ₹4,000, producing a rent agreement over a year after filing for maintenance. This contradicts her earlier statements in affidavits and pleadings in both the Delhi case and the Bokaro case, where she claimed to live with her parents. The rent agreement is an afterthought to justify inflated expenses.

4.6. Moreover, Respondent No. 2 filed another Section 125 CrPC petition in Bokaro in July 2022, claiming ₹60,000 per month while concealing the ongoing Delhi proceedings, which she later withdrew. This clearly reflects her inconsistent and opportunistic approach, making exaggerated claims in different forums.

4.7. That the Family Court also ignored that she has never explained how she manages alleged monthly expenses of nearly ₹1 lakh without income and whether child-related costs are included in her general expenses. Yet, such whimsical figures were accepted without scrutiny.

4.8. That the Family Court wrongly concluded that the Petitioner exaggerated his expenses or concealed income. His affidavit clearly listed his liabilities: ₹10,000 towards rent for a Delhi accommodation where his widowed mother and unemployed brother live, ₹15,000 per month paid as ad-interim maintenance under the previous order, and around ₹14,000 for existing loan EMIs, totaling approximately ₹40,000 monthly expenses. All this was supported by pay slips, account statements, and even details of an additional two-wheeler loan taken in February 2024, whose EMI is ₹5,611. Despite this evidence, the Court speculated that loans were taken to evade maintenance, which the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues is a baseless and far-fetched assumption since deductions for earlier loans were constant throughout and any fluctuation in net salary was due to other deductions.

4.9. That Respondent No. 2 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and is fully capable of earning. Granting ₹35,000 as interim maintenance, therefore, is excessive, unreasonable, and contrary to the principle that maintenance must be fair and realistic, not oppressive or beyond the husband’s means. The order, according to the Petitioner, disregards both the Respondent’s earning capacity and the Petitioner’s genuine financial obligations, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the petition along with the material appended therein and particularly the reasoning assigned by the learned Judge of the Family Court in the impugned order, I am of the view that no interference is warranted by this court. Let us see how.

6. First and foremost, perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is, inter alia, premised on the reasoning by relying on Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Others[1], which held that maintenance should be reasonable, Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde[2], which outlined factors like the status of parties, reasonable needs, income and property of both parties, and dependents, and Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.3, which clarified that interim maintenance is not punitive but intended to prevent hardship. The Family Court also took guidance from Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra[4], which suggested that the family income should be equitably shared, generally two shares to the earning spouse and one share to each other member.

7. Examining the financial status of the respondent-husband, the Family Court noted that his net monthly salary was around ₹65,411 in May 2022 and ₹58,190 in January 2023 after deductions, with gross salary between ₹1,30,560 and ₹1,41,264. It disregarded deductions of about ₹12,000 towards a cooperative loan because the loan had been taken after the initiation of proceedings and appeared to have been done with the intention of reducing maintenance liability. The husband claimed his monthly expenditure was ₹80,500 and an additional ₹20,000 for his widowed mother and unemployed brother, but the Court found no evidence to support the claim of dependency. The Family Court observed that his claimed expenses exceeded his income, indicating either concealment of earnings or exaggeration of expenses.

8. With respect to the wife’s earnings, the learned Family Court recorded that allegations about her earning ₹40,000 per month through tuition and drama activities could not be substantiated with evidence at this AIR 1997SC 339 140(2007) DLT 16

110 (2004) DLT 546 stage and would be decided at trial. The Family Court thus proceeded on a prima facie basis, keeping in mind the statutory obligation of the husband and the need to ensure that the wife and child are not left without support during the pendency of the case. It concluded that an amount of ₹35,000 per month as interim maintenance for both the wife and child together would be reasonable in the circumstances. The Family Court directed that arrears be cleared within three months and that interim monthly maintenance be paid by the 15th of every month through bank transfer, with any amount already paid to be adjusted.

9. Learned Family Court based its interim arrangementrelying on the record presented before it.Since the matter was at a very preliminary stage sans adducing of any evidence by either parties, it formed a prima-facie opinion that as an interim arrangement, given that the respondent wife was found to be in the state of vagrancy and a destitute coupled with the custody of the minor son whose welfare, no doubt, is of paramount importance both for petitioner and respondent number 2 (being the parents), a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month was directed to be paid towards interim maintenance with the factum with date of filing of the application.

10. I may at the very threshold observe that, I see nothing wrong with the view taken by the learned Family Court and ordinarily on this count alone the petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. However, I have my own reasons in support of the view taken by the learned Family Court.

12. The husband has a statutory and moral obligation under Section 125 CrPC to maintain his wife and child, which cannot be avoided by citing discretionary expenses or artificial liabilities such as loans taken after litigation began. His claimed expenses exceeding his declared income suggest concealment or exaggeration. The alleged dependency of his mother and brother appears to be a bald claim subject what is held finally on conclusion of the trial.

13. Considering current living costs, education, and medical needs, ₹35,000 is a reasonable and modest amount, not excessive. The claim that the wife earns ₹40,000 lacks evidence at this stage, and mere allegations cannot defeat interim maintenance, which aims to ensure immediate support and dignity during proceedings, as affirmed in Rajnesh v. Neha[5].

14. Further, applying the share-based formula from Annurita Vohra[6], as per the entitlement, the awarded amount is fair and balanced for maintenance of wife and the child.

15. In view of the aforesaid I find no grounds to interfere. The petition stands dismissed. ARUN MONGA, J AUGUST 6, 2025 Supra note at 3. Supra note at 4.