$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 571/2025 & CRL.M.As. 37651-37654/2025 SAURABH SAGAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Malik, Mr. Deepanshu Trehan and Mr. Nittin Bhatia, Advocates.

versus DEEPSI .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 1^st August, 2025 passed by the Family Court-01, South East District, Saket Courts in MT. No. 191/2023 whereby interim maintenance of INR 40,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the Respondent in proceedings instituted under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.1

2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The Respondent (wife) married the Petitioner (husband) on 24^th August, 2018. Parties have no child from this marriage. Owing to marital discord, the parties have been living separately. 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 submits that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded is unreasonable and manifestly excessive. The Petitioner’s employment is not disputed, however, his net take-home salary during the relevant period was only about INR 84,000/- per month. The Family Court erred in proceeding on the basis of the Petitioner’s gross income and in drawing an adverse inference against him on account of deductions reflected in his salary slips. The said deductions were on account of genuine advances and loan repayments and could not have been disregarded.

4. It is further contended that the Petitioner has financial responsibilities towards his mother, is himself living in rented accommodation, and does not own any immovable property. On the other hand, Respondent is residing with her parents, is a qualified teacher, and is capable of sustaining herself. It is further submitted that the Respondent’s medical expenses stand covered under an insurance policy taken by the Petitioner, and therefore the quantum awarded is disproportionate.

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.

6. The impugned order reflects a detailed and reasoned consideration of

1 “CrPC”

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:

“11. Coming now to the actual earnings of the respondent as revealed from the record. The respondent has placed on record his salary slips for the year 2023 as well as 2024. Now these salary slips give us a true peak into the actual earnings of the respondent. In salaried employment the term "means of the husband" as used in Section 125 Cr. P. C., encompasses (1) gross earnings; (II) regular allowances and perquisites; (iii) annual increments, arrears or bonus; and (iv) only mandatory statutory deductions (income tax, employees share of NPS/EPF and similar compulsory exactions). Self-Incurred or discretionary deductions (consumer loans, festival advances, voluntary savings, insurance premia, society dues, salary-linked purchases, etc.) cannot be permitted to depress the maintenance base. It is trite that a husband cannot, by engineering his pay-out structure, subvert the statutory right of his wife to be maintained.

12. The record of salary slips in this case unmistakably shows that around the