Sh. Sanjay vs Smt. Bharti Verma

Court
Delhi High Court

$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 12 OCTOBER, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No. DLHC010492942026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026
SH. SANJAY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jai Bansal and Ms. Namrata
Kathuria, Advocates.

versus

SMT. BHARTI VERMA .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CM APPL. 71029/2026 & CM APPL. 71030/2026 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 & CM APPL. 71031/2026
1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
has been filed by the Appellant/Husband against the Order dated 17.07.2026
passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi [‘Family Court’] in HMA Petition No.763 of 2024, whereby the Ld.
Family Court has awarded ad-interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month
in favour of the Respondent/Wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 1 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

Act, 1955 [‘HMA’] .
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are germane to decide
the present Appeal are that the marriage between the Appellant and the
Respondent was solemnised on 09.12.2021 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies in Delhi. There is no child born out of the said wedlock. It is
stated that after marriage, the Appellant got to know that the Respondent is
suffering from “Neurological Disorder Schizophrenia”. Thereafter,
matrimonial discords arose between the parties and the Respondent left the
matrimonial home. Subsequent thereto, the Respondent filed a divorce
petition being HMA No.763/2024 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA along
with an application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking maintenance of
Rs.55,000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
3. To ascertain the amount of maintenance, income affidavits of both the
Appellant and the Respondent were sought for by the Ld. Family Court. The
Appellant, in his income affidavit, stated that he is staying with his parents
and his monthly expense is Rs.8,000/- per month. The Appellant in his
affidavit has not stated as to where he is working and also not mentioned
about his source of income. The Respondent, in her affidavit, stated that she
is a graduate in nursing and her monthly expense is Rs.25,000/- per month,
and she does not have any professional income. The Petitioner and the
Respondent also got themselves examined. The Ld. Family Court vide the
Impugned Order dated 17.07.2026, after considering the evidence adduced
by both the Parties, has fixed the income of the Appellant roughly at around
Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/- per month and directed the Appellant to pay a sum
of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to the Respondent from the date of
filing of the divorce petition till the disposal of the divorce petition, apart
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 2 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

from Rs.15,000/-, which was recorded to be already awarded in favour of
the Respondent as litigation expenses to be paid by the Appellant.
4. It is this Order dated 17.07.2026 passed by the Ld. Family Court
which is under challenge in the present Appeal.
5. It is well settled that the Parties in a matrimonial litigation at the time
of fixation of maintenance do not come up with correct particulars and have
a tendency to hide their income and exaggerate their expenses. This fact has
been recognised by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324
wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:

“63. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is
decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount
of guesswork or rough estimation takes place, so as to
make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be
awarded. It is often seen that both parties submit
scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, and
suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for
the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for
grant of interim maintenance. While there is a
tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her
needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the
husband to conceal his actual income. It has therefore
become necessary to lay down a procedure to
streamline the proceedings, since a dependent wife,
who has no other source of income, has to take
recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives
during the interregnum to sustain herself and the
minor children, till she begins receiving interim
maintenance.”


6. The Ld. Family Court, while looking at the material, has observed that
though the Appellant has stated that he has no income, and he has stated that
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 3 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

he has taken a loan of R.3,76,000/- approx, from AU Finance Bank, loan of
Rs.2,25,000/- approx with SBI credit card and there is also mention of two
other credit cards of Kotak Mahindra Bank and Citi Bank. The Appellant
has also stated that he is paying EMIs for the loans. The Ld. Family Court,
however analysed the bank statement of Union Bank of India for the period
from 21.10.2022 to 21.09.2025 filed by the Appellant which shows that
during the said period of three years, there are credit entries to the tune of
Rs.30,45,021.42 and there are debit entries of Rs.30,45,006.53. The Ld.
Family Court also observed that the credit entries show that there are
transactions showing transfer of Rs.49,900/- on 18.11.2022, Rs.10,000/-,
Rs.5,000/-, Rs. 14,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- on
certain dates and entry of Rs.4 lakhs on 20.03.2024, entry of Rs.2 lakhs on
18.05.2024, entry of Rs.2 lakhs on 03.07.2024, entry of Rs.2 lakhs on
10.07.2024, credit entry of Rs.20,000/- on 15.08.2024 and there are number
of entries, which are of Rs.12,000/- or below amount, totalling to
Rs.30,45,021.42 as on 12.09.2025 which categorically show that there are
continuous credit entries in his account and therefore he has not come up
with clean hands.
7. In such circumstances, the Ld. Family Court had no other option but
to guess and assume the income of the Appellant which was estimated by
the Ld. Family Court at around Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/- per month.
8. It is well settled that the object of granting maintenance is to ensure
that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on
account of failure of marriage. The purport of granting maintenance has
been laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments which is to save the
wife from penury and to enable her to live in circumstances which are more
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 4 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

or less similar to the time before marriage. The Apex Court in Rajnesh
(supra) has observed as under:

“77. The objective of granting interim/permanent
alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not
reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the
failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the
other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for
fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

78. The factors which would weigh with the court
inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the
applicant is educated and professionally qualified;
whether the applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her
to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the
applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
whether she was working during the subsistence of the
marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice
her employment opportunities for nurturing the family,
child rearing, and looking after adult members of the
family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working
wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir
Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain
v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of
the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material
while determining the quantum of maintenance. An
order of interim maintenance is conditional on the
circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 5 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or
his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance
that the wife is educated and could support herself. The
court must take into consideration the status of the
parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or
his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual
situations; the court should mould the claim for
maintenance based on various factors brought before
it.

80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the
husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for
his own maintenance, and dependent family members
whom he is obliged to maintain under the law,
liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of
maintenance to be paid. The court must have due
regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well
as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living.
The plea of the husband that he does not possess any
source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his
moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and
has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v.
Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5
SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]

81. A careful and just balance must be drawn
between all relevant factors. The test for determination
of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the
financial status of the respondent, and the standard of
living that the applicant was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2
SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be
reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive
and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 6 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency
of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is
able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.

82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory
guidance with respect to the criteria for determining
the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section
23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which
may be taken into consideration : (i) position and
status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the
claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living
separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of
the claimant's property and any income derived from
such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning
or from any other source.

83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable,
and consistent with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home.

84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj
Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC
OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the
following factors to be considered for determining
maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8)
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the
claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to
maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a
similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial
home.
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 7 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education,
medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the
applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating
the income of the non-applicant when all the sources
or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC
is adjustable against the amount awarded under
Section 24 of the Act.”

85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated
hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be
relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance
payable.”
(emphasis supplied)

9. In the opinion of this Court the Judgment of the Family Court is
within the parameters of the Judgment passed of the Apex Court.
10. In the present Appeal, hardly any explanation is forthcoming from the
Appellant explaining the series of credit entries in his bank account. In the
absence of any explanation, this Court is not inclined to come to the
conclusion that the decision arrived at by the Ld. Family Court of estimating
the income of the Appellant at around Rs.45,000/- to 50,000/- per month is
sans any material, requiring interference by this Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
11. This Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.15,000/- granted by the
Ld. Family Court as maintenance in favour of the Respondent is just, fair
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 8 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51

and reasonable.
12. In view of the above, the present Appeal is dismissed, along with
pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J


RENU BHATNAGAR, J
OCTOBER 12, 2026
S. Zakir
Signature Not Verified
HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 387/2026 Page 9 of 9

21.10.2026 15:51