Family Court Orders Continue To Reflect Mechanical Approach: Delhi High Court Lays Down Guiding Principles On Determination Of Maintenance

The Delhi High Court has laid down certain guiding principles on the determination of maintenance by the Family Courts.

A Revision Petition was filed by the husband against the Order of the Family Court vide which he was directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife and minor son.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “… this Court finds it necessary to make certain broader observations on the manner in which maintenance proceedings are being conducted before the learned Family Courts. This Court has repeatedly found itself flooded with petitions and challenges arising out of orders of ad-interim, interim or final maintenance, which reveal a pattern of deviation from the settled legal principles governing such cases. Despite the detailed directions and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, and specifically in Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021), the same are not being followed in their true letter and spirit. Orders passed by the learned Family Courts, which are often impugned before this Court, continue to reflect either a mechanical approach or a lack of clarity in assessing income of the spouse, determining quantum of maintenance, and recording reasons.”

The Bench reiterated certain basic principles and safeguards that Family Courts must bear in mind while dealing with Petitions for maintenance, and more particularly while granting interim maintenance, so that the object of these proceedings can be truly achieved.

DHCLSC Jahanvi Worah and Advocate Rajat Oswal represented the Petitioner/Husband, while Advocate Mahtab Ali represented the Respondent/Wife.

Case Background

The Petitioner-husband and Respondent-wife got married in 2019 according to Muslim rites and customs. In 2021, the wife instituted a Petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), alleging that after the marriage, when she began residing at her matrimonial home in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, the conduct of her husband and his family members, including his parents, changed drastically. It was alleged that they subjected her to physical assault, verbal abuse, and harassment on trivial issues, and also demanded dowry. She further alleged that upon informing the husband about her pregnancy, he became furious and pressurised her to terminate the pregnancy, or else bring Rs. 10,00,000/- from her parental home for expanding his business and for the “future needs” of the unborn child.

It was further alleged that in 2020, the husband brought her to Delhi, left her at her parental home and then abandoned her. Despite repeated attempts by the Respondent to contact the Petitioner, he had allegedly remained unresponsive. Consequently, she sought maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month for herself Rs. 3,00,000/- towards medical expenses, etc. in respect of her pregnancy. During the pendency of the proceedings, she gave birth to a son while residing at her parental home. The Family Court directed the husband to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- towards the minor son. Being aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “It is, therefore, misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the plea that the wife “was working earlier” to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. A woman who gives a hiatus to her career to support her family makes a personal and professional sacrifice, which, in a harmonious marriage, may go unnoticed or be silently valued. However, when marital discord arises and parties get separated, that very sacrifice is too often portrayed as a devilish act intended to extract money from the husband. Such sweeping assumptions are not only unfair but deeply insensitive to the social and emotional realities that women face. Every case must, therefore, be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, rather than through generalized or gendered presumptions.”

The Court said that where the Respondent-wife was left at her parental home during pregnancy, delivered a child there, and has since been living with her parents without any financial or emotional support from the husband, the Court must adopt a practical and humane approach.

“The petitioner’s claim that he is sustaining himself and his son from his first marriage on a meagre monthly expenditure of ₹3,000/- does not inspire confidence. Courts, while adjudicating such matters, cannot turn a blind eye to the economic realities of life. Judges, as members of society, are expected to apply their understanding of these lived realities to ensure that justice is not confined to paper, but resonates with the truth of ordinary existence. Judicial decisions in family matters must, therefore, be informed by both legal principle and social understanding”, it added.

The Court noted that living in the parental home after marriage carries its own emotional and social challenges, especially in Indian society, where such a return is often viewed with stigma or familial discomfort.

“A married daughter returning to her parental home is often not treated as a mere return for a physical shelter, but it rather represents a collapse of emotional security and social standing. These realities also deserve judicial recognition. It is time that such hardships, faced by women who are compelled to return to their parental homes in distress, are acknowledged, in deserving cases, with empathy and reflected while adjudicating and determining the quantum of maintenance. Each case cannot be painted with the same brush”, it further remarked.

However, the Court also said that impugned Order cannot be sustained in its present form and while the Family Court rightly observed that the Petitioner had concealed his true income and possessed sufficient means, it proceeded to fix the amount of maintenance without recording any assessment of his income or indicating the basis on which the figure of Rs. 20,000/- per month was arrived at.

“The learned Family Court shall pass a reasoned order afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged before the learned Family Court”, it directed.

Guiding Principles

The Court, therefore, laid down the following guiding principles for determination of maintenance –

(i) Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha: The decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, stands as a guiding star for the Courts across the country on the manner in which the applications for interim maintenance, or even Petitions for maintenance at final stage, are to be considered and decided by the Family Courts.

(ii) Assessment of the Income of Parties: Assessing income is the first and most crucial step, as maintenance cannot be determined in vacuum. Only after establishing what the earning spouse actually earns, or can reasonably be expected to earn, can a just and proportionate amount be fixed towards the sustenance of those who are entitled to be maintained.

(iii) Necessity of recording reasons even while granting interim maintenance: Avoiding extremes of over-elaboration or cryptic orders in maintenance proceedings.

(iv) Caution in applying minimum wages criteria while assessing notional income of the husband

(v) Assessment of wife’s employability after marriage and childbirth: a realistic perspective: Childcare is not a marginal or secondary responsibility, but a full-time commitment that constrains the mother’s ability to engage in regular employment

(vi) Earning by the wife not sole ground to deny maintenance to her and the child in her custody

(vii) Living with parents after separation – no ground to deny or reduce maintenance

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court observed that no two cases of maintenance are ever identical, for these are not mere Petitions drafted on paper — they are, in most instances, reflections of real human lives and circumstances and each Petition narrates a personal story, often marked by struggle, disappointment, sacrifice, and survival.

“Behind every claim for maintenance lies a lived experience, a family’s history, and a set of facts deeply rooted in individual realities. Therefore, one case cannot be measured by the yardstick of another, for the dynamics of every marriage and the circumstances of every separation are unique”, it noted.

The Court emphasised that the Family Courts must approach each case with sensitivity and an open mind, appreciating that every set of facts presents its own challenges.

“In every such proceeding, there are two sides to a human story – that of the wife and that of the husband. … Nevertheless, even amidst these constraints, the Court must endeavour to strike a balance between expedition and fairness. … orders on maintenance must reflect not only correctness in law but also an understanding of the human conditions that lie beneath the pleadings presented before the Courts”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition, remanded back the case to the Family Court for a fresh determination of interim maintenance, and directed that the Judgment be circulated to all the Principal District and Sessions Judges of the District Courts in Delhi, with a direction to circulate the same to all Judicial Officers, particularly those presiding over the Family Courts, so that the observations made are duly noted and complied with in letter and spirit.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9479)

Click here to read/download the Judgment