Jyoti & Anr. vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 15.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 05.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 08.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 993/2024
JYOTI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Divya Malhotra, Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms Sneha Rani, Mr Abhishek
Verma and Mr. Satayam
Singh, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. 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
₹8,000/- and ₹5,000/- per month respectively, i.e., a total sum of
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 1 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
₹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 ₹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 ₹1 lakh per month, his net
income, after deductions, was about ₹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
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 2 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
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 ₹8,000/- and ₹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 petitioner no. 1 is not earning deliberately despite having
capacity to earn or has concealed her actual carning from this
court to claim maintenance. No doubt, bank statement of
petitioner no. has not supported her carning but merely on this
ground caring of petitioner no. 1 may not be disputed, as cash
carning may not be denied. In fact, this court has to keep in
mind the status of petitioner no. 1 while considering quantum
of maintenance that she may earn easily but is not carning
despite having no impediment.
15. On the other hand, respondent is doing a government job
and fact is not disputed by WS, affidavit of income and assets
and salary slip of respondent. Respondent has filed his pay slip,
as per which, he is working as Senior Assistant and drawing a
salary of Rs. 99,914/- pm, with net salary of Rs. 50,833/- after
deduction of Rs. 49,081/-. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has
argued that all deductions in salary of respondent are not
required to be considered while calculating his monthly
income, which is strongly opposed by Ld. Counsel for
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 3 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
respondent. However, one fact is to be kept in mind that
respondent got this job in lieu of his father after his death and
has furnished a undertaking to maintain his family members
including mother, due to respondent cannot escape of his
responsibility to maintain his mother and other family
members. Salary Slip of respondent would show that he has
deductions of EPF & APF contribution, professional tax,
Income Tax deduction and property loan cic. All such
deductions out of salary of respondent must be considered
because of necessity. Respondent is a government servant and
two-wheeler vehicle is required for travel and loan advance
against it is liable to be adjusted. Similarly, housing loan is also
requirement of family of respondent and housing advance is
also to be deducted from salary of respondent. As such,
deductions from salary of respondent are necessary deductions
and must be considered by this court while calculating monthly
income of respondent. As such, monthly income of respondent
is @ Rs. 50,833/- for determination of maintenance of
petitioners.
16. Further, mother of respondent, though getting pension yet
dependent upon respondent, whereas his other family members
/ brothers/ sisters are major and not dependent upon him.
Respondent has dependency of four persons including two
petitioners, accordingly, income of Rs. 50,833/- of respondent
has to be divided into five shares. However, petitioners shall
not be entitled for equal shares in view of educational
qualification and capacity to car of petitioner no 1 and also to
maintain petitioner no.2, who is joint responsibility of both
parties. Petitioner no. 1 shall be entitled for monthly
maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- and petitioner no. 2 shall be
entitled for Rs.5,000/- pm, which shall be payable on 10 of
each succeeding calendar month from the date of filing of this
petition and during subsisting relationship of husband and wife
between petitioner no.1 and respondent no. I. Petitioner no.2
shall be entitled for maintenance till she attains age of
majority/start carning/gets married, whichever is carlier.”
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the learned Family Court has misapplied the settled principles of law
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 4 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
and relevant judicial precedents, including the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324 . It is
contended that the learned Family Court, after assessing the
disposable income of respondent no. 2 at about ₹50,833/- per month,
erred in reducing the maintenance to ₹13,000/- per month by
applying an arbitrary apportionment. The learned counsel submits
that respondent no. 2 is employed as a Senior Manager with the State
Bank of India at Ranchi and earns about ₹1 lakh per month. It is
pointed out that, on the basis of such income, ad-interim maintenance
of ₹20,000/- per month (₹15,000/- to petitioner no. 1 and ₹5,000/- to
petitioner no. 2) was granted vide order dated 17.05.2018. However,
in the final order dated 14.09.2023, the learned Family Court has
reduced the maintenance without any cogent material or change in
circumstances being brought on record. It is further submitted that
deductions towards housing loan, vehicle loan, and other such
liabilities are not statutory or mandatory deductions, and therefore
cannot be relied upon to artificially reduce the income of respondent
no. 2 for the purposes of determining maintenance. It is thus argued
that, in view of the respondent‟s income, the petitioners are entitled
to higher maintenance, commensurate with his earning capacity.
6. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2
submits that there is no ground for enhancement of maintenance in
the present case. It is argued that the learned Family Court has passed
a well-reasoned order after duly considering the income, deductions,
and financial liabilities of respondent no. 2. It is further submitted
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 5 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
that petitioner no. 1 is educated and capable of earning, and therefore
would not fall within the category of a woman “unable to maintain
herself.” The learned counsel contends that the learned Family Court
has correctly assessed the income and overall financial capacity of
respondent no. 2 on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence
on record, and that the maintenance awarded, i.e., ₹8,000/- per month
to petitioner no. 1 and ₹5,000/- per month to petitioner no. 2, is
neither arbitrary nor excessive. It is further submitted that the ad-
interim maintenance was granted on a prima facie assessment,
whereas the final determination has been made after a full-fledged
trial. The learned Family Court has rightly taken into account that
respondent no. 2, after the demise of his father, is responsible for
maintaining his dependent mother and siblings. It is argued that the
deductions reflected in his salary, including housing and vehicle
loans, are genuine financial liabilities and cannot be disregarded as
artificial or inflated. It is also contended that the entitlement to
government accommodation does not negate the existence of such
liabilities. Further, reliance is placed on the admitted fact that
petitioner no. 1 had previously been giving tuition, to establish her
earning capacity. It is thus submitted that the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioners as well as respondent no. 2, and has perused the material
available on record.
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 6 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
8. The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is
whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family
Court vide impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023 suffers from
illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing
the material available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, for the
reasons recorded in the succeeding paragraphs.
Incorrect assessment of income by considering non-statutory
deductions
10. It is an admitted position that the respondent is employed as a
Senior Assistant and is drawing a gross monthly salary of about
₹99,914/-. However, the learned Family Court has taken the net
salary of ₹50,833/- as the basis for determining maintenance, after
deducting various amounts including EMIs towards housing loan and
vehicle loan. In this Court‟s view, the approach adopted by the
learned Family Court is contrary to the settled position of law. It is
well-settled that while determining the income of the earning spouse,
only statutory and compulsory deductions are to be considered.
Deductions arising out of voluntary financial commitments, such as
loan repayments for acquisition of assets or vehicles, cannot be
permitted to dilute the obligation to pay maintenance. In this regard,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 7 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
Dehradun: (1997) 7 SCC 7 had observed that only statutory and
involuntary deductions are to be taken into account. In this regard,
reference may also be made to the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in Subhash v. Mamta @ Raksha: MAT. APP. (F.C.) No.
195/2025, decided on 26.05.2025 , wherein it was categorically held
that repayment of personal loans and EMIs voluntarily undertaken by
the earning spouse cannot be treated as permissible deductions so as
to dilute or override the primary obligation to maintain a dependent
spouse or child. The Court reiterated that the determination of
maintenance must be based on the "free income" of the earning
spouse and not on the net income that remains after accounting for
voluntary financial commitments.
11. More recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Deepa Joshi v.
Gourav Joshi: 2026 INSC 370 has categorically held that deductions
arising out of loan repayments, particularly those contributing to
creation of assets, cannot be treated as necessary expenses so as to
reduce maintenance liability. The relevant observations are set out
below:
“12. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it emerges that the
determination of maintenance must be guided by a balanced
assessment of the earning capacity of the husband and the
reasonable needs of the wife. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that the respondent is in salaried employment and has a
regular source of income. The Family Court, while determining
maintenance, appears to have accorded considerable weight to
deductions reflected in the salary, and the High Court has, to an
extent, corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the amount.
13. However, deductions arising out of financial commitments
such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 8 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
towards creation of assets, cannot be placed on the same
footing as necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce
the liability of maintenance. The liability to maintain a spouse
is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such
financial arrangements.”
12. Thus, the learned Family Court has clearly committed an error
in treating EMIs towards housing loan and vehicle loan as necessary
deductions and in assessing the respondent‟s income on the basis of
net salary.
Erroneous consideration of dependents
13. Furthermore, the learned Family Court has proceeded on the
premise that the respondent has one additional dependent, i.e., his
mother, and has accordingly apportioned his income into five shares,
i.e. two shares for the husband, one for his mother, one for the wife
(petitioner no. 1) and one for the minor daughter (petitioner no. 2), as
per the judgment of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 2004 SCC
OnLine Del 192 .
14. In this regard, it is not in dispute that the respondent's mother
is receiving pension. While it is true that a son has a legal and moral
obligation to maintain his parents, the extent of such dependency has
to be assessed on the basis of the financial position of the parent.
Where the parent is receiving a regular pension, the dependency
cannot be treated as absolute so as to substantially reduce the share of
the wife and minor child.
15. The learned Family Court, however, has mechanically treated
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 9 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
the mother of the respondent as fully dependent upon him, without
examining the effect of the pension being received by her. Thus, the
assessment of dependent members by the learned Family Court is not
based on proper appreciation of the material on record.
16. Insofar as the contention raised before this Court by the
learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that his siblings are also
dependent upon him is concerned, the same cannot be accepted.
There is no material on record to show that the siblings of the
respondent, who are major, are dependent upon him on account of
any incapacity or special circumstance. In the absence of any such
pleading or proof, major siblings cannot be treated as dependents for
the purpose of determining maintenance.
Reduction of maintenance on the ground of earning capacity of
petitioner no. 1
17. The learned Family Court, after dividing the income of the
respondent no. 2-husband into five shares, has further reduced the
share of the petitioners on the ground that petitioner no. 1 is educated
and capable of earning, and that the responsibility of maintaining the
minor child is a joint obligation of both parents. Consequently, even
though on such division the petitioners would have been entitled to
two shares (i.e., ₹20,000/- in total, taking the assessed income as
₹50,000/-), the learned Family Court has awarded only ₹13,000/-
(₹8,000/- to petitioner no. 1 and ₹5,000/- to petitioner no. 2).
18. In this Court‟s opinion, the above-noted approach is contrary
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 10 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
to settled law. It is well established that mere capacity to earn is not a
ground to deny or reduce maintenance. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna: (2018) 12 SCC 199 has
categorically held that the capability of the wife to earn is not
sufficient to deny maintenance. In Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC
324 , the Supreme Court has further observed that where a woman has
remained out of employment for a considerable period due to
matrimonial responsibilities, it would be unrealistic to expect her to
immediately become self-sufficient. Similarly, in Sunita Kachwaha
v. Anil Kachwaha: (2014) 16 SCC 715 , it has been held that even if
the wife is earning, she is entitled to maintenance if her income is
insufficient to maintain herself in accordance with the standard of
living in the matrimonial home.
19. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that
petitioner no. 1 is actually earning any income. The finding of the
learned Family Court that she may be earning or deliberately not
earning is only speculative and cannot form the basis for reducing the
amount of maintenance and not granting even one-fifth share of the
husband‟s assessed income.
Resultant perversity in fixation of maintenance
20. In view of the above errors, the approach adopted by the
learned Family Court in first reducing the income of the respondent
to about ₹50,000/- by including non-statutory deductions, then
further inflating the number of dependents, and thereafter reducing
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 11 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
the share of the petitioners on speculative grounds, has resulted in
fixation of total maintenance at ₹13,000/- per month for both
petitioners, which is apparently disproportionate to the admitted gross
income of the respondent, which is about ₹1 lakh per month.
Directions
21. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated
14.09.2023 is set aside.
22. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for
fresh determination of maintenance, in accordance with law and in
light of the observations made herein, within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of this order.
23. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
24. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Family Court for
information and necessary compliance.
25. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 05, 2026/ns
T.D.
CRL.REV.P. 993/2024 Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40