Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 1005

2026 DHC 3850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Jyoti And Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr. - Respondents
CRL.REV.P. 993 of 2024
Decided on : 05-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Divya Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms Sneha Rani, Mr Abhishek Verma and Mr. Satayam Singh, Advocates

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Divya Malhotra
For the Respondents: Sneha Rani, Abhishek Verma, Satayam Singh

Non-statutory deductions like voluntary loan repayments cannot be used to reduce maintenance. Calculations must rely on gross income less only mandatory statutory deductions. Dependency of parents with pensionable income and the potential earning capacity of a spouse require evidence-based objective assessment, not speculative assumptions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Quantum of maintenance - Determination of monthly income - Permissible deductions from salary - Principles for fixation of maintenance. (Paras 1, 10-12)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Power of the court to interfere with orders based on perversity or misapplication of legal principles - Disregard of settled law regarding voluntary loan deductions to reduce maintenance liability. (Paras 9-12)

(C) Maintenance - Dependent family members - Assessment of dependency for parents receiving pension - Requirement of evaluating the financial position of parents to determine the necessity of full dependency - Exclusion of major siblings from dependency calculation without proof of incapacity. (Paras 13-16)

(D) Maintenance - Earning capacity - Mere educational qualification or potential to earn cannot be grounds for reduction of maintenance - Speculative assessment of earnings is impermissible - Need for evidence of actual income. (Paras 17-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a spouse and a minor, challenged the trial court's order assessing the monthly maintenance. The trial court had significantly reduced the quantum by deducting non-statutory liabilities, such as personal housing and vehicle loan EMIs, from the salary of the earning spouse and by treating retired parents as fully dependent despite receipt of a pension. The order also reduced the share of the claimants based on speculative assumptions regarding the spouse's educational background and earning capacity.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court observed that voluntary financial commitments like loan repayments for asset creation cannot override the primary duty of maintenance. It determined that the trial court erred in creating a disproportionate division of income by treating a loan-burdened salary as the basis for calculation. The court further ruled that a parent's pension must be assessed against dependency and that assumptions of a spouse's earning capacity, unsupported by concrete evidence, cannot justify lower maintenance.

Issues: Whether personal loan repayments are necessary deductions for maintenance calculation and whether speculative earning capacity and assumed dependency of parents justify a reduction in the maintenance amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance determination must rely solely on statutory deductions from the gross income. Voluntary financial commitments and loans do not decrease the maintenance obligation. Furthermore, the dependency of parents receiving regular income and the capacity of an unemployed spouse to earn must be evaluated based on substantial evidence rather than speculation, as the primary duty of maintaining dependents remains paramount.

Result: Decision set aside and remanded for fresh determination in accordance with law.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual basis for seeking section 125 cr.p.c. maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding the calculation of husband's income and wife's maintenance entitlement. (Para 5 , 6)
3. voluntary non-statutory deductions from salary cannot reduce maintenance liability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. dependency status must be grounded in actual financial need, not mechanical apportionment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. speculative earning capacity is insufficient to deny or reduce maintenance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. remand of matter for fresh maintenance determination due to legal errors. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek setting aside of the judgment dated 14.09.2023 [hereafter ‘impugned judgment’] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Family Court’] in CT No. 2015/2016 titled ‘Jyoti & Anr. v. Rajeev Ranjan’, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’].

2. Vide the impugned judgment, the petitioner no. 1-wife and petitioner no. 2-minor daughter were awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month respectively, i.e., a total sum of Rs. 13,000/- per month, from the date of filing of the petition.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Briefly stated, the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 24.06.2014. It is alleged that prior to and after the marriage, the petitioner no. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, including demand of cash and a car, and that her jewellery was retained by the respondent no.2’s family. It is further alleged that she was physically and mentally harassed on multiple occasions and was ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home. A female child was born out of the wedlock on 19.04.2015. Despite having a regular source of income, the respondent no. 2 allegedly neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners, compelling them to file the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in September 2016, seeking maintenance. By way of order dated 17.05.2018, the petitioners herein were awarded ad-interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month.

4. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 led evidence, whereas the respondent did not lead any evidence. Upon hearing arguments on behalf of both parties, the learned Family Court observed that although the respondent was earning about Rs. 1 lakh per month, his net income, after deductions, was about Rs. 50,000/- per month. Taking into account that the respondent had one additional dependent, i.e., his aged mother, the learned Family Court apportioned the said income into five shares, out of which two shares were attributed to the petitioners, two for the respondent and one for the old mother. However, it was further held that the petitioners were not entitled to these two equal shares, in view of the earning capacity of petitioner no. 1 and the fact that petitioner no. 2 is the joint responsibility of both parents. Accordingly, maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded to petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 respectively. The findings of the learned Family Court are set out below:

“14. Petitioner no. 1 has alleged that she is residing separately and is not carning, whereas she is maintaining her school going daughter. She has further admitted that she is highly educated and M.A. (Sociology) and earlier was earning by tuitions but now she is not earning. It is further deposed that petitioners are being maintained by her father and unmarried sister, who is working. However, is beyond explanation as to why petitioner no.1, who a highly educated and qualified lady, is not working or carning despite a separation of 8 years. She has admitted that she has been residing in a joint family and other family members may take care of petitioner no. 2, which suggests that cither pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 1005

Cases Referred (4)