Delhi HC Upholds Joint ₹20,000 Monthly Interim Maintenance For Wife And Daughter After Husband Repeatedly Failed To File Income Affidavit

Respondent no. 1 sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for herself and her minor daughter, alleging that the petitioner earned Rs.50,000 per month.

Despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner did not file an affidavit of income and assets and did not comply with an ad-interim maintenance direction.

On 15 November 2025, the Family Court drew an adverse inference, assessed his income at Rs.50,000 per month, and ordered interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month jointly for the respondents.

The petitioner filed a revision on 26 September 2026, after the limitation period had expired on 13 February 2026, seeking condonation of a 222-day delay. He attributed the delay to his former counsel’s failure to inform him of the order and challenged the income assessment.

The proceedings arose under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court considered the explanation for delay against the record and held that no sufficient cause was shown where the order recorded that the petitioner’s counsel had been heard, no affidavit from former counsel supported the allegation, and the petitioner had otherwise been negligent.

On the merits, the Court accepted that the Family Court could draw an adverse inference and proceed on the respondent’s income assertion when the petitioner repeatedly failed to file the directed affidavit of income and assets.

The petitioner’s explanation that he lacked knowledge of the order was inconsistent with the Family Court record, which showed that his counsel had been heard; the absence of an affidavit from former counsel further left the allegation unsupported.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s continuing failure to pay ad-interim maintenance and found that he approached the Court only after execution proceedings began, concluding that sufficient cause for delay had not been established.

On the merits, his repeated failure to disclose his income justified the Family Court’s adverse inference and its reliance on the respondent’s asserted income.

It clarified that the petitioner could file an income-and-assets affidavit with supporting documents before the Family Court and seek modification of maintenance, to be considered on its merits after hearing respondent no. 1.