$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 01.07.2025
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 & CRL.M.A. 29468/2024
SH LALIT MOHAN MAHARA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hari Shankar, Advocate
along with petitioner in person.
versus

SMT MEENAKHSHI MAHARA

AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Payal Seth, Amicus Curiae
along with R-1 in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner-husband has
challenged the order dated 01.08.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟]
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District,
Karkardooma Court, New Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟] vide
which the learned Family Court has awarded sum of ₹45,000/-
(₹22,500/- for each respondent, i.e. respondent no. 1/wife and
respondent no. 2/the minor child) per month to the respondents from
the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟] till its disposal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 1 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 was
solemnized on 11.02.2015, and a female child was born out of their
wedlock on 19.08.2017, who is currently in the custody of respondent
no.1. Due to the alleged acts of cruelty committed by the petitioner
and his family members, the respondent no. 1 had left the
matrimonial home and subsequently filed the petition under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition against the

impugned order dated 01.08.2024 granting interim maintenance,
passed by the learned Family Court. The petitioner claims that he was
always willing to reside with the respondents. It is the case of the
petitioner that he is presently residing in rented accommodation and
that his aged parents are financially dependent on him. It is also his
case that he has taken loans amounting to ₹35,00,000/- from various
banks for the construction of a house at his native place. The
petitioner contends that respondent no. 1 did not file an affidavit of
income and assets before the learned Trial Court, and despite this, the
learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.03.2024 had earlier
erroneously directed him to pay ad-interim maintenance of ₹15,000/-
per month (₹7,500/- each for the wife and child).

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the
impugned order is a non-speaking order, as it merely records the
submissions made by the parties, and does not assign any reasons for
the conclusions drawn. It is argued that the learned Family Court
failed to consider the financial liabilities of the petitioner, including

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 2 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 the maintenance and medical expenses of his aged parents, who are
entirely dependent upon him. The petitioner is also burdened with the
repayment of a home loan, for which he is paying an EMI of
₹66,216/- per month, in addition to the monthly rent of his residence.
The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been regularly
paying the school fees of the minor child amounting to ₹5,500/- per
month even prior to the filing of the present proceedings and remains
willing to bear all educational expenses of the child. It is contended
that if the petitioner is directed to pay ₹45,000/- per month as
maintenance to the respondents, he will be financially incapable of
meeting his loan obligations, particularly the EMI payable to the
bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention to
the income affidavit filed by respondent no.1 (wife), stating that it is
inconsistent and unreliable. It is submitted that the respondent has
claimed monthly expenses to the tune of ₹70,000/-, including
₹20,000/- allegedly spent on the minor child, despite the fact that the
petitioner is already paying the school fee. In view of the above, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated
01.08.2024 be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned amicus curiae appearing for the
respondents argues that the present petition is devoid of merit and
warrants dismissal, as the impugned order granting maintenance to
the respondents is based on settled legal principles and admitted
facts. It is submitted that the petitioner-husband is gainfully
employed as a Software Engineer with TLG India, earning

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 3 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 ₹1,05,000/- per month, as admitted in his own affidavit. No material
has been placed on record to dispute or reduce this admitted income.
Further, the learned Family Court has rightly applied the principle
laid down in case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 110 (2004)
DLT 456, which mandates equitable apportionment of the husband's
income, i.e. two parts for the husband, one part for the wife, and one
part for the child. It is further submitted that although the petitioner
failed to produce proof of his alleged investment under the Sukanya
Samriddhi Yojana, the learned Family Court still extended its benefit
by allowing a deduction of ₹15,000/- from his salary, and thus,
showed due leniency in his favour. It is contended that the
petitioner‟s claim regarding financial dependence of his aged parents
is vague and remains unsubstantiated, as no documents have been
filed to prove their income, expenses, or dependency. As for the
petitioner‟s reliance on EMIs towards home loan repayment, it is
submitted that this plea has no legal basis. It is argued in this regard,
that this Court has in several decisions held that voluntary EMIs,
especially those towards properties not owned by the petitioner,
cannot be considered while determining maintenance obligations. In
this case, the property for which EMIs are being paid is admittedly
owned by the petitioner‟s father, and thus, no deduction on that
ground is permissible. It is also argued that the respondent no. 1/wife
was treated with cruelty by the petitioner and his family and that the
petitioner was having illicit relations with some other girl and had
even purchased a house for her. It is further argued that the

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 4 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 respondent-wife has no independent income, is only 12th pass, and is
residing with her parents, and she and the minor child are entirely
dependent on the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court,
and any reduction would cause serious financial hardship. In view of
the above, the learned amicus curiae prays that the impugned order be
upheld and the present petition be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both

the parties and has perused the material available on record.

7. This Court is of the opinion that as per the petitioner and the
affidavit of income and expenditure filed by him, he has himself
admitted to having a monthly income of Rs.1,05,000/-. He has not
disputed that he is working as a Software Engineer with TLG India
Private Limited.

8. As far as the contention regarding payment of EMI of home

loan is concerned, the same is not a mandatory deduction or liability,
as already observed by this Court in the case of Sodan Singh Rawat
v. Vipinta (Supra) and Abhinav Kumar v. Swati & Anr.: Crl. Rev.
P.211/2024. The relevant observations of this Court in this regard are
set out below:
“10. It is undisputed that some deductions from an employee‟s salary
are mandatory, while others are voluntary and made at the employee‟s
discretion. However, when determining the amount of maintenance,
the Courts are required to consider only the mandatory deductions and
compulsory contributions. In case of Chanchal Verma v. Anurag
Verma: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2993, this Bench had observed as
under:
“32. It has been held categorically in the case of Nitin Sharma v.
Sunita, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694, that only statutory mandatory

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 5 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 deductions from the income of the husband are permissible to be
deducted for the purpose of computation of his income for the
purpose of grant of maintenance. The observations of the Court
read as follows:
“...24. In the opinion of this Court, while calculating the quantum
of maintenance, the income has to be ascertained keeping in
mind that the deductions only towards income tax and
compulsory contributions like GPF, EPF etc. are permitted and
no deductions towards house rent, electric charges,
repayment of loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted…”
33. The court further reiterated what was held by the Hon'ble Punjab
& Haryana High Court in the case of Seema v. Gourav Juneja, 2018
SCC OnLine P&H 3045 which is stated as under:
“13. In a nutshell, a husband cannot be allowed to shirk his
responsibility of paying maintenance to his wife, minor child,
and parents by availing loans and paying EMIs thereon,
which would lead to a reduction of his carry home salary…”
(Emphasis added)
34. Similarly in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3
SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the fixation of
rate of maintenance, had made the following observations:
"...19. It was further argued before us that the High Court went
wrong in allowing maintenance at 25% of the income of the
appellant as found by the Income Tax Department in assessment
proceedings under the Income Tax Act. It was contended that not
only should a deduction be made of income-tax but also of house
rent, electricity charges, the expenses for maintaining a car and
the contribution out of salary to the provident fund of the
appellant. In our view some of these deductions are not allowed
for the purpose of assessment of "free income" as envisaged by
the Judicial Committee. Income Tax would certainly be
deductible and so would contributions to the provident fund
which have to be made compulsorily. No deduction is
permissible for payment of house rent or electricity charges. The
expenses for maintaining the car for the purpose of appellant's
practice as a physician would be deductible only so far as
allowed by the income-tax authorities i.e. in case the authorities
found that it was necessary for the appellant to maintain a car..."
11. Be that as it may, despite having had the opportunity, the
petitioner failed to lead any evidence to establish the necessity of
these loans. In such circumstances, the petitioner‟s argument
regarding loan repayments does not hold merit and cannot be accepted
as a ground to reduce or deny maintenance to the respondent.”

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 6 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 9. This Court notes that the petitioner has failed to place on
record, either before this Court or before the learned Family Court,
any material to demonstrate that the respondent-wife has any
independent source of income. There is no document, affidavit, or
income proof filed to indicate that the respondent-wife is engaged in
any gainful employment or possesses any financial resources of her
own. Mere bald assertions made by the petitioner cannot substitute
evidence, especially in proceedings concerning maintenance and
sustenance of the wife and child who are unable to maintain
themselves.

10. Further, the petitioner‟s claim regarding his parents being

financially dependent upon him remains completely unsupported by
any documentary evidence. Despite having filed affidavits and other
documents, the petitioner has not produced any record to show the
income, expenses, medical requirements, or financial liabilities
concerning his parents. In the absence of any such material, this
Court is unable to accept the petitioner‟s contention that the financial
responsibility towards his parents warrants a reduction in the
maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife and the minor child.

11. This Court also takes note of the fact that the EMIs being paid
by the petitioner are towards his ancestral house. It is well settled that
such voluntary financial obligations, especially when incurred for
ancestral property that does not exclusively belong to the petitioner,
cannot be considered as mandatory deductions while determining
maintenance. The statutory right of the wife and child to receive

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 7 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 maintenance cannot be defeated on account of EMIs that the
petitioner is paying towards any property.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also
argued that the petitioner is only left with payment of one month of
outstanding maintenance, implying that there is no deliberate or
substantial default on his part. However, the learned amicus curiae
appearing for the respondent rightly pointed out that even a single
day‟s delay in the payment of maintenance leaves a profound impact
on the respondent, who struggles to meet her daily expenses, sustain
herself, and provide for the minor child. This Court notes that while
the petitioner continues to sleep in peace, secure in the knowledge of
his regular income and resources, the respondent suffers in silence,
grappling with uncertainty and anxiety about how she will meet her
basic needs if maintenance is not paid in a timely manner. The
hardship faced by a dependent spouse or child is not measured
merely by the quantum of arrears but by the immediate consequences
of financial deprivation that even short delays in maintenance can
cause. The very object of maintenance under the statutory framework
is to ensure financial stability and a sense of security for the
dependent spouse and child. Maintenance is intended to safeguard
their right to live with dignity and meet basic expenses such as food,
shelter, clothing, healthcare, and education. It is not a benevolence or
charity to be delayed at the convenience of the earning spouse. The
legislative intent is to prevent precisely the kind of fear, helplessness,
and financial insecurity that the respondent has expressed due to such

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 8 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 delays. Thus, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner‟s argument
that minimal outstanding maintenance is a ground to dilute or defer
his legal obligation. Even a day's lapse compromises the welfare of
the dependent wife and child, which defeats the purpose of
maintenance provisions.

13. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that maintenance is not
merely a monetary obligation but a legal and moral duty designed to
preserve the dignity and security of the dependent spouse and child.
In the present case, while the petitioner argues that only one month's
maintenance is outstanding, the impact of such delay on the
respondent cannot be trivialised. The reality is that even a day's
uncertainty over basic expenses causes distress and hardship to the
respondent, who is entirely dependent on the maintenance for her
survival and for providing for the minor child. When financial
support is delayed, dignity is the first casualty. The respondent
should not be left to suffer in silence, questioning how her immediate
needs will be met while the petitioner enjoys financial stability. The
very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the
convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is
dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely
maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the
basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support.

14. This Court also notes that it is unclear whether the petitioner is
paying the entire school fee of the minor child. However, the
petitioner has stated that he is paying ₹5,500/- towards the child‟s

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 9 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 school fee, which was not considered by the learned Family Court. In
her affidavit of income and expenditure, the respondent-wife has also
not claimed that she is paying the school fees of the minor child. To
this extent, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount ought to
have been taken into account while determining the maintenance
payable by the petitioner to the respondents. It is further noted that
the minor child, who is six years of age and studying in Class II at
Mayo International School, I.P. Extension, Delhi, incurs
approximately ₹16,650/- as quarterly school fee and other related
expenses. Accordingly, this Court directs that the interim
maintenance payable to the respondent no.1-wife shall remain to be
₹22,500/- per month, however, the respondent no.2/minor child shall
be entitled to interim maintenance of ₹17,500/- per month. The
impugned order shall stand modified to this extent.

15. Needless to say, any amount of interim maintenance paid by

the petitioner shall remain adjustable in the future amount of
maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court at the time of final
disposal of the case by the learned Trial Court.

16. With above directions, the present petition along with pending
application stands disposed of.

17. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

18. This Court also appreciates the efforts of Ms. Payal Seth,
Advocate who was appointed as amicus curiae in the present matter

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 10 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08
 to represent the respondents.

19. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

JULY 01, 2025/zp/ns

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 50/2024 Page 11 of 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.07.2025
18:09:08