Facts
The parties married in 2008 and have one minor son born in 2009.
Source reference: p. 2They separated on 26.03.2018, with the child remaining in the mother’s custody.
Source reference: p. 2Following separation, the wife initiated proceedings under the DV Act, Section 125 CrPC, and Section 13 HMA.
Source reference: p. 2-3The wife claimed she had no independent income, while the husband alleged she earned from a boutique ("Katyayni"), tuition classes, and rental income from property in Sonipat.
Source reference: p. 3-5By order dated 15.02.2023, the Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000 per month (apportioned equally between wife and child) effective from 07.06.2018.
Source reference: p. 1-4The husband appealed this order.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the Family Court erred in granting interim maintenance despite the husband's allegations of the wife’s independent income from business and rentals.
Source reference: p. 8-92. Whether potential earning capacity or past income tax returns are sufficient grounds to deny maintenance under Section 24 HMA.
Source reference: p. 16-173. Whether the quantum of ₹1,00,000 per month was excessive given the husband's disclosed annual income of ₹5 lakhs.
Source reference: p. 17-18Law Applied
The Court applied Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 125 of the CrPC regarding maintenance.
Source reference: p. 1-3It relied on the principles from Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) regarding factors for determining maintenance, including the parties' status and the non-applicant's actual paying capacity.
Source reference: para. 43It followed Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007), which allows for "guesswork" when sources of income are not truthfully disclosed by self-employed persons.
Source reference: para. 43-44Further, it applied Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (2017) and Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018), establishing that "capable of earning" is distinct from "actually earning" and that a spouse's qualification does not automatically disentitle them to maintenance.
Source reference: para. 39-40Reasoning
The Court found that the husband failed to provide contemporary evidence (bills, GST registration, or lease deeds) to prove the wife was currently running a boutique.
Source reference: para. 17Regarding bank entries in the wife’s Vijaya Bank account, the Court noted these primarily related to the period before separation (2015–2017) and did not show a continuing pattern of stable income post-separation.
Source reference: para. 27-34It observed that the husband exercised control over some of the wife’s accounts, as his mobile number was linked to her Axis Bank account.
Source reference: para. 35Regarding the husband’s income, the Court rejected his declared annual income of ₹5 lakhs as unrealistic, noting he operates a jewellery shop in the high-traffic Chandni Chowk area and refused a hypothetical offer to lease the shop for the same amount.
Source reference: para. 45-48The Court emphasized that maintenance should reflect the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage and cover the child’s actual expenses (school fees of ₹15,000/month) rather than bare survival.
Source reference: para. 51-53Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court’s order.
It held that the wife’s educational qualifications or past business associations do not negate her current need for support when no actual income is proven.
Source reference: para. 41The Court found the monthly maintenance of ₹1,00,000 (₹50,000 each for wife and child) to be reasonable given the husband’s business status and the child’s educational requirements.
Source reference: para. 52It clarified that the obligation to maintain the family is independent of child visitation rights.
Source reference: para. 55Original Court PDF
Gautam KapoorvsMrs Aaina Kapoor
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in