Delhi HC Upholds ₹15,000 Interim Maintenance For Wife After Husband Failed To Explain ₹30.45 Lakh In Bank Credits Over Three Years

The parties married on 9 December 2021 and have no children.

The wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), with an application under Section 24 seeking monthly maintenance and litigation expenses.

The Family Court awarded her interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month and recorded a separate award of ₹15,000 as litigation expenses.

The husband appealed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Although he disclosed no source of income, his bank statements showed credits totalling approximately ₹30.45 lakh over the period examined; the Family Court estimated his monthly income at ₹45,000–₹50,000.

Whether the Family Court’s estimate of the husband’s income at approximately ₹45,000–₹50,000 per month was unsupported by material and warranted appellate interference

Whether the interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month awarded to the wife was just and reasonable

Section 24 of the HMA permits interim maintenance where a spouse lacks independent income sufficient for support.

Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the High Court may review the Family Court’s order on appeal.

Applying Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court noted that interim maintenance may involve a prima facie assessment where parties provide incomplete or inaccurate financial disclosures; relevant considerations include the parties’ status, the claimant’s reasonable needs and independent income, the respondent’s actual income and liabilities, and the standard of living.

The amount must be reasonable and realistic—not oppressive or so meagre as to leave the claimant in penury

The husband stated that he had no income and disclosed loan and credit-card liabilities, but did not explain the numerous credits in his bank account, which totalled approximately ₹30.45 lakh over three years.

Given the continuous credit entries and absence of an adequate explanation, the Family Court was entitled to estimate his income at ₹45,000–₹50,000 per month.

The appellate court found no basis to treat that estimate as unsupported or to disturb the resulting maintenance award.

In light of the wife’s lack of professional income and the principles governing reasonable interim support, ₹15,000 per month was considered just and fair

It dismissed the appeal and any pending applications, leaving the ₹15,000 monthly maintenance award in force