Maintenance Must Be Balanced, Shouldn't Financially Cripple Husband: Delhi High Court Modifies S.125 CrPC Order - 2025-08-29

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Reduces Maintenance, Stresses Need for Financial Balance

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has significantly reduced a maintenance award, emphasizing that the amount must be balanced to ensure adequate support for the wife and child without financially crippling the husband. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna modified a Family Court order, cutting the monthly maintenance from ₹25,000 to ₹17,500, in a case involving a petition filed by the husband, Ankush Kumar Parashar.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a matrimonial dispute between Ankush Kumar Parashar and his wife, Sapna @ Mona, who married in 2017 and have a son born in 2018. The couple separated in April 2018, following which the wife filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in 2019.

The Family Court in Karkardooma, Delhi, had initially awarded an interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month, which was later reduced to ₹15,000 by the High Court in 2022. However, in its final order dated April 30, 2024, the Family Court directed the husband to pay a final maintenance of ₹25,000 per month, assuming his monthly salary to be ₹50,000. Aggrieved by this decision, the husband filed the present revision petition.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner (Husband): Ankush Kumar Parashar argued that the Family Court had erroneously assessed his income. He submitted bank statements and an income affidavit showing his net salary was approximately ₹36,000 per month, not ₹50,000. He highlighted his financial liabilities, including a home loan EMI of ₹11,341, rent of ₹9,000, and expenses for his dependent senior citizen parents. He also claimed his wife, a B.Com graduate, was capable of earning and was working as a tailor, earning over ₹15,000 per month. The husband contended that his wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that the maintenance awarded was exorbitant and would "collapse him financially."

Respondent (Wife): Sapna @ Mona alleged she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to harassment and dowry demands from her husband and his family. She stated she was beaten while pregnant and that the petitioner never visited her or their child after the birth. She asserted that the Family Court's order was reasonable and based on the evidence available.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna addressed two primary issues: whether the wife deserted the husband without cause, and the appropriate quantum of maintenance.

On Desertion: The Court found no merit in the husband's claim that the wife left without reason. It noted that the wife had made specific allegations of harassment and ill-treatment, which were not challenged in cross-examination as the husband failed to lead evidence. The Court observed, "The Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in proof of his contentions... there is nothing to show that the wife had separated without any reason or had deserted the Petitioner." Thus, the wife's eligibility for maintenance was upheld.

On Quantum of Maintenance: The High Court found the Family Court's assessment of the maintenance amount to be disproportionate. After examining the husband's bank statements, the court accepted his net salary to be around ₹40,000 per month.

The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach, citing precedents like Sh. Bharat Hegde vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde and Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra . The court stated:

"The maintenance amount must be determined in a balanced manner; it should be one that ensures adequate support for the wife and child, while also taking into account the Petitioner’s financial obligations of his liability towards Home Loan, his expenses and responsibility towards parents."

Considering the husband's documented income of ₹40,000 and his financial obligations, the court deemed the ₹25,000 award excessive. It noted that the wife had not provided specific details of her and the child's expenses.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court modified the Family Court's order, reducing the total maintenance to ₹17,500 per month (₹10,000 for the wife and ₹7,500 for the child), payable from the date of the petition's filing.

The court also took note of the husband's recent claim of having lost his job and being re-employed at a much lower salary of ₹21,500. However, as this was a subsequent event that needed to be proven with evidence, the court left it open for him to seek further modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that while husbands have a responsibility to maintain their estranged wives and children, maintenance awards must be realistic and based on a holistic assessment of the husband's income, assets, and liabilities.