Delhi High Court says 25K maintenance "excessive" when husband earns 43K per month; reduces quantum

The Delhi High Court has reduced the maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month to the sum of ₹17,000/- per month as awarded to a wife.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma relied on the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra wherein the High Court had held that the net income of the husband is to be apportioned in “units” or “shares”, ordinarily by keeping two shares for the husband and one share for the wife where there are no children or other dependents, so that the wife ordinarily is held entitled to about one third of the husband's net income.

"Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, and considering the fact that petitioner herein has no dependents, the petitioner would be entitled to two shares and the wife to one share out of three shares in all. On a monthly income of about ₹43,189/-, one share would come to roughly 14,000–₹15,000/-. Even allowing for some reasonable increase having regard to inflation, the rise in cost of living, and the need to secure a dignified standard of living for the respondent-wife, the grant of ₹25,000/- per month as maintenance would amount to awarding her a sum which is more than half of the petitioner‟s income as reflected in the ITR. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding maintenance in the sum of ₹17,000/- per month to the petitioner", the bench ordered.

Court relied on the ITR for the AY 2018–2019, filed by the husband disclosing annual income of ₹5,18,268/-. In this regard the single judge bench noted the maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month is excessive, merits consideration.

A revision petition was filed before the High Court against a decision of Family Court-02, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide which the petitioner-husband had been directed to pay maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.

The High Court found the Family Court had rightly considered that the respondent wife had admitted in her cross-examination that she had not filed any document or evidence to support her claim that petitioner herein is a businessman, manufacturing jeans and earning ₹1,50,000/- or having any share in the HUF property.

"On the other hand, the petitioner husband had admitted during his cross-examination that the ITR for the AY 2018–2019 (Ex. PW-1/5) pertains to him and reflects an annual income of ₹5,18,268/-. He also admitted that he was the proprietor of the firm in respect of which the said ITR was filed. In the absence of any credible documentary evidence to the contrary, the learned Family Court was justified in treating the income disclosed in the said ITR as the petitioner's income for the purpose of determination of maintenance.", High Court further noted.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.07.2016 at Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. Eventually, in March 2020, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance, alleging that although her parents had spent about ₹15 lakhs on the marriage, the petitioner husband and his family had remained dissatisfied with the dowry and had subjected her to continuous harassment, beatings, and demands for an additional ₹5 lakhs and a car. 

She claimed that on 17.10.2018 she was mercilessly beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home, and that even when she returned with her brother on 17.02.2019, she was not allowed to enter the house and was abused and threatened. She alleged that the petitioner, who earns about ₹1,50,000/- per month from his jeans manufacturing business, had neglected and refused to maintain her; thus, compelling her to seek maintenance of ₹75,000/- per month.

Case Title: SH. ANKUR JAIN vs. SMT. SWATI JAIN

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Order Date: December 9, 2025