Interim maintenance is based on prima facie assessment to prevent vagrancy; mere assertion of a spouse's employability or capacity to earn, without proof of sufficient actual income, does not absolve the husband of his statutory obligation to provide maintenance.

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 24th September, 2025 passed by Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Mt. Case No. 101/2020 whereby interim maintenance of INR 20,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the Respondents in proceedings instituted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973., (“Cr.P.C.”)

2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The Petitioner (husband) married Respondent no. 1 (wife) on 14th February, 2014. From this marriage, they have one girl child (Respondent No. 2) who is presently in custody of Respondent no. 1. Owing to marital discord, the parties have been living separately since 16th June, 2016. The Respondent thereafter instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, in which the application for interim maintenance came to be decided by the impugned order.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Family Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.1 is not wholly dependent and is stated to be earning approximately INR 15,000 per month as a social worker. It is further contended that the monthly expenditure projected by the Respondents is exaggerated and does not warrant an award of interim maintenance of INR 20,000 per month.

4. It is also argued that Respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home of her own volition and without sufficient cause, and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. The Petitioner further submits that he bears responsibility towards his aged parents and that the impugned order does not reflect consideration of his liabilities. Lastly, it is urged that the impugned order is non-speaking and has been passed mechanically, without a reasoned assessment of the comparative financial positions of the parties.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The challenge is to an order granting interim maintenance. It is well settled that interim maintenance is fixed on a prima facie assessment of the material placed on record, with the object of ensuring subsistence during the pendency of proceedings. At this stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed fact-finding exercise or conduct a mini-trial. Moreover, interference in revisional jurisdiction is warranted only where the discretion exercised by the Trial Court is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or manifestly illegal on the material placed before the Family Court. The relevant observations of the Family Court, which form the basis of the impugned order, read as under:

“3. I have considered the submissions and gone through the record. This court is to decide whether the respondent should be awarded interim maintenance and if so, to what amount.

4. In a recent judgment dt 31/08/2023, in case titled As Zahir Abdullah Vs Omar Abdullah (Crl.Rev.P. 604/2018 & Crl.M.A. 28262/2018), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court discussed the law in detail on the grant of interim maintenance u/s 125 CrPC. The court reiterated that the principle underlying Section 125 Cr.P.C. For the sake of brevity, the relevant observations made in para 21, 22 & 24 are not being reproduced.

5. In Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the criterion for determining quantum of maintenance.

6. In Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava , 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1651, the Hon’ble Court observed that while guessing the income of the spouse, when the sources of income are either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court can take into consideration amongst others th