Interim maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are decided on affidavits, and appeals against them often turn less on entitlement than on arithmetic. In Atul Aggarwal v. Kirti Aggarwal (Criminal Appeal No. 504/2024, decided on 7 October 2026), the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, drew that line precisely: the husband's challenge to his wife's and child's entitlement failed, but the trial court's assessment of his income at ₹50,000 per month, reached without explained reasoning from the bank entries it relied upon, could not stand. The quantum goes back for a fresh, reasoned determination.
The dispute in brief
The parties married in November 2016; a son was born in October 2017 and carries a disability certificate recording 80% disability. The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act in February 2022, alleging dowry harassment, deprivation of her jewellery and denial of support, and sought interim maintenance of ₹80,000 per month under Sections 20 and 23. The husband denied the allegations, asserted that the wife worked as an accountant earning ₹25,000 per month, and claimed his own income was a modest ₹10,000 from work at his brother\'s shop. The couple have lived apart since September 2021, and a separate petition under Section 125 CrPC was also pending.
What the appellate court affirmed — and what it refused to accept
The prima facie finding that the wife and child are entitled to interim maintenance. The court noted the husband\'s own conduct — withdrawn restitution and divorce petitions, irregular payments — and reiterated the settled position that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his obligation by pleading that he earns nothing.
The figure of ₹50,000 per month attributed to the husband. Rejecting his ₹10,000 claim was justified; but the leap from unexplained bank credits to a specific monthly income, without analysis of the entries or of his liabilities, was not a reasoned assessment and could not support the quantum awarded.
Earning capacity is not earning
The husband\'s plea that the wife earns ₹25,000 per month failed for want of any document: a bare assertion of employment does not shift the burden. At the same time, the court recognised that her qualifications and earning capacity are not irrelevant — they bear on the amount, not on the threshold entitlement. This mirrors the framework the Supreme Court laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, under which both sides must place sworn, documented disclosure of income, assets and liabilities before the court, and the maintenance figure must be anchored in that record rather than in impressions.
The remand directions
Both parties must file fresh, updated affidavits of income, assets and liabilities within two weeks. The wife must disclose every bank account held since 1 January 2021, with statements. The husband must produce his bank statements, income-tax returns and GST registration and returns, and explain the credit entries in his accounts. The trial court will then fix the quantum afresh by a reasoned order — it may be more, less or the same, effective from the date of the petition — and must specifically weigh the child\'s disability, the wife\'s health, and any overlap with the Section 125 CrPC proceedings to avoid double recovery.
Why the decision matters in practice
Interim maintenance litigation in Delhi\'s Mahila Courts frequently produces orders that are right in direction but vulnerable in arithmetic. This judgment is a useful reminder on both sides of the aisle. For claimants, entitlement is rarely the battleground when cohabitation, marriage and a dependent child are admitted; what secures a durable order is clean financial disclosure, because a concealed bank account — even an empty one — hands the respondent an appellate argument and a Section 340 application. For respondents, attacking an income assessment succeeds only where the trial court\'s reasoning is genuinely absent; a disbelieved affidavit and missing GST records will otherwise sustain an adverse inference. The appellate court here did not reward either side\'s lapses: it preserved the family\'s interim support, restored discipline to the fact-finding, and placed both spouses under documentary oath before the figure is fixed again.
Appeals under Section 29 of the DV Act lie to the Court of Session within thirty days of the order. They are not a second trial: findings of entitlement based on a prima facie view are seldom disturbed, and the realistic target is almost always the quantum, the effective date, or procedural error in how income was assessed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the trial court originally order?
The Mahila Court (JMFC-03, Central District) had, on 24 October 2024, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 15,000 per month to the child from the date of the petition, after rejecting the husband's claimed income of Rs. 10,000 and assessing it at not less than Rs. 50,000 per month on the strength of credit entries in his bank account.
Why was the quantum set aside if the husband's income claim was disbelieved?
The appellate court agreed that the husband's stated income was not credible and that adverse inferences flowed from his inconsistent affidavits and missing GST records. But disbelief of one figure does not prove another: the trial court never explained how the bank credits translated into Rs. 50,000 a month, nor did it weigh his liabilities. An assessment must be reasoned, not merely asserted.
Does the wife receive anything while the remand is decided?
Yes. As an interim arrangement the husband must continue paying Rs. 10,000 to the wife and Rs. 15,000 to the child by the 10th of each month from October 2026, adjustable against the final figure. The trial court was asked to redetermine the quantum, preferably within eight weeks, after fresh affidavits and documents from both sides.
What happens about the wife's incorrect affidavit regarding bank accounts?
Her affidavit had wrongly stated that she held no bank account. The court treated this as a real but limited lapse, since the accounts disclosed no salary income, and left the question of whether it was deliberate to be decided in the pending application under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS).