$~66

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 17, 2025 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 554/2025, CRL.M.A. 36700/2025,

CRL.M.A. 36701/2025, CRL.M.A. 36751/2025

SH. ANKIT PRAKASH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Thakur,

Adv. through V.C.

versus

SMT YASHODA .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner husband challenging the order dated 21.10.2024 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Family Court, Patiala

House Courts, New Delhi in MT No. 150/2023.

2. The learned Family Court by the impugned order allowed the application filed by respondent wife seeking interim maintenance and thereby directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent till

the final disposal of the case.

3. It is averred that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 15.02.2021 as per Hindu rites and

customs, whereafter, a child was born out of the said wedlock.

4. It is alleged that the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and his family, thereafter, on 13.04.2024 the

respondent left her matrimonial home and the parties have been residing separately since then.

5. It is alleged that the petitioner is not permitted to meet his son and whenever the petitioner and his relatives visit the respondent to settle the dispute, the respondent does not wish to settle and abuses the petitioner as well as his relatives.

6. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) along with an application seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner.

7. As noted above, the learned Family Court vide the impugned order allowed the application filed by the respondent seeking interim maintenance. The learned Family Court noted that the petitioner had concealed his sources of income and had misled the Court by claiming to live in a rented accommodation which prima facie belonged to his mother. The learned Family thereby awarded interim maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month to the respondent till the final disposal of the case.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the learned Family Court erred in assessing the income of the petitioner at ₹25,000/- to ₹30,000/- per month.

10. He submits that during the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner was admitted in a rehabilitation centre and is unemployed. He submits that in such circumstances, awarding an interim maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month is highly excessive.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Analysis

12. In the present case, the learned Family Court had assessed the income of the petitioner at 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. The learned Family Court duly noted the fact that the petitioner had concealed his sources of income.

13. From a perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the petitioner had not filed his income tax returns of the relevant period in order to assess his income. Further, the petitioner had concealed about owning a stationery shop under the name of ‘Honey Hut’.

14. Even otherwise, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner before this Court in order to show that he is not earning the aforesaid income as assessed by the learned Family Court.

15. It is common knowledge and has been observed by this Court in many cases that it is a normal tendency of the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes to not disclose their true incomes. The Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning [Ref: Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde:2007 SCC OnLine Del 622]. Considering the observations made by the learned Family Court in regard to the income of the petitioner, at this stage, prima facie, the assessment of the petitioner’s income as ₹25