CASE NAME: Husband (VK) v. Wife (SD) & Anr.
CASE NUMBER: CRL.REV.P. 452/2023 with CRL.M.A. 10546/2023, CRL.M.A. 10548/2023, CRL.M.A. 23663/2025
COURT: Delhi High Court
DATE: 16 March 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan
FACTS
The parties have been living separately since 2013, and a petition for maintenance was filed before the Family Court of Karkardooma, which gave the judgement in favor of the wife and children . It ordered the husband to grant a monthly maintenance of ₹8,300 each to his wife and two children, and later ₹10,000 each to the wife and daughter after the son turned 18. Further, the court directed for an increment of 10% in the maintenance amount, every two years and ₹11,000 as litigation costs. Aggrieved by this, the husband filed a petition before Delhi HC challenging the said judgement.
ISSUES
- Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS) ?
- Whether the Family Court has erred in its decision, which requires interference?
- Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded requires revision?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – maintenance to wife, children and parents
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The husband claimed that there was no neglect from his part and he had provided a house, which the wife took over and allegedly rented out. He claimed that the wife is not entitled to maintenance since she had income as rent from the above said house provided by him and she has expressed her unwillingness to live with him. Moreover, he contended that the income assessment was faulty as he is drawing a modest pension owing the voluntary retirement from the CRPF, and is earning a small amount from a low‑yield, small agricultural plot, with total MSP‑based income figures barely above ₹60,000 per year even before costs.
RESPONDENTS:
The wife and children countered that she had consistently alleged cruelty and harassment since 2013, and that the separation was driven by his conduct, not by her refusal without cause. They submitted that the rental income was ₹2,500–3,000 per month from part of the matrimonial house and not any substantial amount alleged by the husband. The respondents relied on the husband’s salary slips and tax records to show that he had been drawing around ₹33,000–42,000 per month in 2016–2018, with a likely net salary above ₹40,000–50,000 by 2019. Additionally, they argued that voluntary retirement at age 47 coupled with vague claims of non‑remunerative agriculture is an attempt to avoid proper maintenance.
ANALYSIS
The Delhi High Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein it was reiterated that Section 125 CrPC (Sec. 144 of BNSS) is meant to prevent destitution by ensuring that those with a moral obligation support dependants, and that “unable to maintain herself” refers to the standard of life the wife enjoyed during cohabitation, not bare survival. It noted that disqualifications like adultery or refusal to live with the husband must be strictly proved, and found that no such bar exists in the present case. The wife had consistently alleged cruelty, her staying in the matrimonial house did not show neglect by the husband, and her choice not to return could not by itself defeat maintenance.
The High Court analyzed the income of the husband assessing his salary slips and tax returns as suggesting under‑disclosure and reasonably inferring that his earnings before voluntary retirement would have crossed ₹40,000–50,000 per month. Skeptical that a 47‑year‑old, B.Com‑qualified ex‑government employee was surviving only on pension and a “loss‑making” small farm, the HC referred to Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007) SCC OnLine Del 622 and Anju Garg and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022) SCC Online SC 1314 to highlight the husband’s continuing duty to earn and maintain his family. In contrast, the wife’s only proven rent was a nominal ₹2,500–3,000 per month and the allegation of ₹30,000 rent was unsubstantiated, even though the Family Court had been generous in setting aside an income “share” for his mother, that oversight did not justify cutting down the maintenance awarded.
JUDGMENT
The Delhi High Court held that the maintenance awarded of ₹8,300 per month each to wife and children initially, then ₹10,000 per month each to the wife and daughter post‑majority of the son, with 10% enhancement every two years was fair and did not warrant interference in revision. It upheld the Family Court’s approach on both entitlement and quantum and declined to accept the husband’s plea of disentitlement based on alleged refusal to cohabit or supposed rental income, and confirmed the assessment of his earning capacity despite his voluntary retirement. The revision petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.
CONCLUSION
The judgment reinforces that in maintenance matters, courts must consider the real economic capacity of an able‑bodied husband and the lived situation of the wife and children, not just salary slips, MSP charts or any stories made up by the parties. The Court upholds the core purpose of Section 125 of CrPC (S. 144 of BNSS), which is to ensure a basic and dignified standard of living for deserted wives and children, consistent with the family’s status, while reminding husbands that their duty to support is not so easily side‑stepped.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: ABIA MOHAMMED KABEER
Read the judgement copy here
Husband__VK__v__Wife__SD____Anr
