Interim maintenance litigation often turns into a battle of bank statements. The spouse claiming maintenance points to credits flowing through the other side's accounts; the spouse paying insists the figures are gross turnover, transfers or borrowings rather than income. In Annu Garg v. Ashish Garg (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 598/2026, decided on 29 September 2026), the Delhi High Court addressed exactly this contest — and declined to treat bank transactions as a proxy for disposable income.
The dispute
The parties married in December 2018. The marriage ran into difficulty within months, with the wife alleging cruelty and harassment; the parties separated in April 2019, and criminal proceedings followed on allegations under provisions including Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, alongside proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In May 2019 the wife sought interim maintenance.
The Family Court assessed the husband’s monthly income in the range of ₹80,000–90,000 and fixed interim maintenance at ₹15,000 per month. Dissatisfied, the wife carried the matter to the Delhi High Court in revision — CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 598/2026 — seeking enhancement. Her case rested substantially on the respondent’s bank transactions, which she said revealed far greater financial capacity, and on her own expenses, including the cost of preparing for the judicial services examinations.
What the High Court held
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the revision on 29 September 2026. Two strands of reasoning stand out.
Finding neither patent illegality nor perversity in the Family Court’s assessment, the High Court declined to interfere — while preserving the petitioner’s liberty to seek modification before the Family Court if circumstances materially change.
Why the decision matters in daily practice
Interim maintenance is decided at a stage when evidence is incomplete, and bank statements are often the only hard documents on record. This decision is a reminder that they must be read, not merely counted. For claimants, the lesson is to go beyond totals: identify salary credits, recurring business receipts, rental inflows or investment income, and connect them to a coherent picture of earning capacity. For respondents, the decision underlines the value of explaining entries — through ledgers, loan documents or tax returns — rather than leaving the court to draw adverse inferences.
The revisional threshold
The judgment also illustrates the narrow channel through which interim maintenance orders are reviewed. The High Court in revision does not sit as a second Family Court. Unless the order ignores material evidence, rests on no evidence, or applies a legally impermissible standard, the figure fixed below will generally stand — with the parties relegated to the fuller remedy of trial, where maintenance is finally determined on complete evidence. Litigants weighing a challenge to an interim order should therefore assess not whether a higher figure was possible, but whether the order is legally unsustainable.
Practice pointer: a plea for enhancement is strongest when anchored in specific, explained entries — identified salary or business credits, admitted assets, or demonstrated concealment — rather than aggregate account turnover. Equally, a respondent who fully discloses and explains his finances makes revisional interference far less likely.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do bank statements matter at all in maintenance cases?
Yes — they remain among the most important documents, and courts routinely direct their disclosure along with the affidavit of assets and income. The point made in this decision is narrower: credits appearing in an account are a starting point for inquiry, not conclusive proof of income. The court must examine what the entries represent — salary, business receipts against which expenses are incurred, loans, or mere transfers — before converting them into a maintenance figure.
What standard does the High Court apply when reviewing an interim maintenance order?
A revisional court does not re-fix the amount as if deciding the application afresh. It interferes only where the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or a jurisdictional error. In this case, since the Family Court had considered the material and assessed income within a reasonable range, the High Court found no ground to disturb the figure of ₹15,000 per month.
Is the wife left without a remedy if circumstances change?
No. The High Court expressly preserved the petitioner's liberty to approach the Family Court for modification upon a material change in circumstances. Interim maintenance orders are inherently provisional: they can be revisited when fresh material emerges, and the final determination at trial is made on the full evidence.
Does this reasoning apply to proceedings under the DV Act as well?
The underlying principle — that maintenance is fixed by a holistic assessment of income, assets, liabilities and the standard of living, not by a fixed formula — is applied across maintenance jurisdictions, whether under Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), the Hindu Marriage Act or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.