How should a court divide one disclosed salary between a husband, a wife who claims she earns nothing, and a minor child in her custody? In Kumar Abhinav v. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 482/2024, decided on 7 October 2026), the Additional Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, answered with the arithmetic Delhi courts have long applied: treat the disposable income as a cake of portions, deduct only what the law compels, and test claims of the other spouse's employment by proof rather than assertion. The husband's appeal against interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month failed on every limb.
Background
The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 along with an application for interim relief under Sections 20 and 23. The Mahila Court awarded ₹10,000 per month in aggregate — ₹2,000 for the wife and ₹8,000 for the minor child living with her — payable from the date of the application. The husband appealed under Section 29, arguing that the wife is educated and earns about ₹50,000 a month from a garment shop, that his own salary of ₹32,400 is consumed substantially by a loan EMI of roughly ₹17,085, and that the child\'s claimed expenses were inflated.
The three questions the appeal raised
At the interim stage the court needs only a prima facie case. Disputed versions of cruelty and dispossession are matters of trial evidence; the wife\'s allegations crossed the threshold required for interim relief.
No proof of employment or salary was produced. The court reiterated that the DV Act — unlike the stricter language found elsewhere — does not make inability to maintain oneself a precondition, and that earning capacity cannot be equated with actual earning.
After deducting only income tax and compulsory contributions — not EMIs or utility bills — the disposable income supported the award under the four-portion apportionment approach. The figure was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.
The deduction discipline
The most practically significant part of the judgment is its treatment of liabilities. Husbands resisting maintenance routinely present their net-of-everything income: salary minus EMIs, minus rent, minus insurance premiums, minus credit card dues. The Saket court, following the line of authority in Nitin Sharma, declined to travel that road. Income tax and compulsory statutory deductions such as GPF come off the top; voluntary financial commitments do not. The logic is straightforward — a spouse cannot contract his way out of a statutory maintenance obligation by acquiring debt — and it aligns with the Supreme Court\'s insistence in Rajnesh v. Neha that maintenance be fixed on a realistic, documented picture of means rather than on self-serving arithmetic.
Reading the award against the formula
With a disclosed income of about ₹32,400 and no statutory deductions shown beyond the standard ones, the apportionment approach drawn from Annurita Vohra would allocate roughly a quarter of the disposable income to the wife and a quarter to the child. The actual award — ₹2,000 and ₹8,000 — totals less than a third of the disclosed salary, weighted deliberately towards the child. The appellate court found this entirely consistent with the formula, and noted additionally that the household the wife maintains pays no rent, a factor the trial court had legitimately weighed. The appeal was dismissed and the interim order sustained in full, payable until the Section 12 petition itself is decided.
Interim maintenance under the DV Act and maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — can run in parallel, but amounts paid under one are adjusted against the other. Where both proceedings exist, the financial affidavits filed in each must match; inconsistencies between them are the single most common source of adverse inference in Delhi\'s family litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What had the Mahila Court ordered?
On 13 September 2024, the JMFC-04 (Mahila Court), South District, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month — Rs. 2,000 for the wife and Rs. 8,000 for the minor child in her custody — from the date of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act until the main petition is decided.
The husband said the wife runs a garment business earning ₹50,000. Why did that fail?
Because he produced nothing to prove it. Following the reasoning in Kanupriya Sharma, the court held that the DV Act does not require the aggrieved woman to show she is unable to maintain herself, and that capacity to earn is not the same as actual earning. An unproven allegation of employment cannot reduce or defeat interim maintenance.
Can loan EMIs be deducted from the husband's income before fixing maintenance?
No. Applying Nitin Sharma, the court held that only income tax and compulsory statutory deductions such as GPF may be subtracted to arrive at disposable income. A house loan EMI of about ₹17,000 and electricity charges are personal liabilities and do not shrink the maintenance base.
What is the apportionment formula the court applied?
The approach drawn from Annurita Vohra: divide the disposable income into portions — broadly two for the earning husband, one for the wife and one for the child. On a disclosed income of about ₹32,400, the award of ₹2,000 and ₹8,000 sat comfortably within that framework, and the appeal was dismissed.