Unsupported claims of below-minimum-wage income do not defeat reasonable interim child maintenance.

The parties married in 2012 and have a minor daughter, who was studying in Class 9.

In the appellant’s divorce petition, the respondent sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, only for the child.

The Family Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 6,000 per month from 9 May 2024, adjusting Rs. 1,000 already payable under proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; it also directed payment of arrears in six equal instalments.

The appellant challenged the order, contending that the respondent earned a substantial amount and that the maintenance awarded was excessive.

1. Whether the Family Court’s award of Rs. 6,000 per month as interim maintenance for the minor daughter warranted interference on the appellant’s claim that his income was low and the respondent was earning.

2. Whether the amount awarded, after adjustment of the Rs. 1,000 payable under the Domestic Violence Act proceedings, was excessive or unreasonable.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was the basis of the respondent’s application for interim maintenance in the pending matrimonial proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that both parents bear responsibility for the child’s upbringing and development.

It also relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, for the observation that parties may fail to make true and proper income disclosures, requiring the court to estimate income where necessary.

The Family Court’s assessment also referred to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the applicable minimum-wage figures for graduates in Delhi.

The appellant claimed monthly earnings of Rs. 4,000–5,000 but gave no cogent reason for earning below the applicable minimum wage; his earlier claim in the Domestic Violence Act proceedings had put his monthly income at Rs. 9,337.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Family Court’s adverse assessment of his income disclosures, particularly in the absence of a salary certificate before the appellate court.

It further reasoned that the child’s expenses extended beyond school fees and should not be borne by the mother alone; the record did not establish that the respondent earned so much that the father need make no contribution.

In those circumstances, Rs. 6,000 per month, subject to the specified adjustment, was not exorbitant or unreasonable.

It dismissed the appeal without issuing notice to the respondent and dismissed any pending applications.