An able-bodied husband cannot avoid his maintenance obligations by claiming low income or his wife's earning capacity; courts may draw adverse inferences based on past lifestyle and financial assets if the husband fails to submit credible documentary evidence of his current income.

O R D E R

13.11.2025

1. This revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹“BNSS” assails the impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2025, passed by Judge, Family Court-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in MT No. 5861915/2016 tiled “Pallavi Sharma & Anr. v. Rajeev Sharma”.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court has directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of INR 10,000 per month to Respondent No.1 from the date of filing of the petition, payable for her lifetime or until she re-marries, along with INR 10,000 per month to Respondent No.2 till his attainment of majority. The Petitioner has also been directed to clear the arrears of maintenance accruing from the date of filing of the petition within the time stipulated in the impugned order. The direction concerning Respondent No.2 is not under challenge, and the present revision is confined to the maintenance awarded to Respondent No.1.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30th April, 2006, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have a son, Vaibhav, born on 24th March 2007 and his custody has remained with Respondent No.1. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties had been residing separately since 2009 and have since engaged in multiple litigations inter se. The present proceedings arise from the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,²“Cr.P.C.” from which the impugned order emanates.

4. The Petitioner presses the following grounds in challenge:

4.1 The Trial Court overlooked the order dated 18th July, 2025 in SLP (C) No. 4900/2024, by which the Petitioner has been directed to clear arrears in terms of the order dated 05th December, 2022 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and to continue paying INR 10,000 per month. He has already discharged substantial arrears arising from earlier maintenance orders, including those under Section 24 HMA and pursuant to directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, amounting to approximately INR 21,55,000. The corresponding execution proceedings were disposed of as satisfied on 24th May, 2025. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order overlooks these directions and recomputes arrears under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at about INR 35,50,000 from the date of filing, thereby creating what he characterises as a duplicative financial burden.

4.2. The Trial Court erred in assessing his income at INR 40,000-50,000 per month. He asserts that he is only a driver earning a modest amount and that the alleged distributorship and stationery business had long closed and, in any event, belonged to his late father. Hence, the presumption of higher earnings is unfounded.

4.3. Respondent No.1 is an able-bodied and qualified person capable of earning, and her capacity was not duly considered. Her choice not to work should not result in an automatic entitlement to maintenance.

4.4. The scheme of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and cannot be invoked to enrich a spouse who is residing in her parental home and has no financial responsibilities.

4.5. The parties have been divorced since 2023; the Petitioner has re-married and bears responsibilities towards his present wife and aged mother, making the award of INR 10,000 per month to Respondent No.1 an undue financial burden.

5.