In Arif v. Savia @ Raviya (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 622/2026, order dated 12 October 2026), the Delhi High Court dealt with a revision petition by a husband with a certified 100% hearing and speech disability who challenged a Family Court direction to pay Rs. 8,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife and minor child. Justice Sanjeev Narula moderated the amount to Rs. 6,000 per month — Rs. 4,000 for the child and Rs. 2,000 for the wife — but rejected the central plea that the disability itself extinguished the obligation to maintain.
The competing claims
The Family Court had directed interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month — Rs. 4,000 each for the wife and the minor child — by its order of 4 June 2026. The husband's revision rested on his disability: he is deaf and mute, holds a government disability certificate, and contended that his only receipts were disability pension. The wife's side had the Family Court's logic in support: the minimum wage of an unskilled worker in Delhi can be attributed as earning capacity, because disability may diminish earning power without erasing it altogether.
Timing was the fulcrum
What the High Court found decisive, at least prima facie, was chronology. The disability did not supervene after the marriage; it existed before the husband married and before the child was born. A person who enters matrimony and parenthood with full knowledge of his condition takes on the ordinary obligations that come with both. The Court put it directly: having assumed the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood, the petitioner "cannot rely on his disability alone to evade his obligation to maintain his family." The needs of the wife and especially the minor child, the Court stressed, must be given due consideration.
A calibrated interim order
Rs. 8,000 per month — Rs. 4,000 to the wife and Rs. 4,000 to the child, with arrears from the date fixed in the order.
Rs. 6,000 per month — Rs. 4,000 to the child and Rs. 2,000 to the wife, until further orders; arrears recalculated at the revised rate and payable within the original timeline.
The structure of the reduction is telling. The child's share was left untouched; the moderation came entirely from the wife's component. That reflects a consistent pattern in interim maintenance practice: the claim of a minor child is treated as close to absolute, while the spouse's claim is weighed against the payer's demonstrated means. The Court was careful to describe its observations as prima facie and confined to the interim arrangement — the revision itself remains to be decided, with the matter listed in February 2027.
The wider point for maintenance practice
Maintenance proceedings — whether under Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 20 of the DV Act — repeatedly confront the question of the payer who says he cannot pay. This order adds a useful marker to that line: incapacity arguments are assessed against the point in time at which the responsibilities were assumed. A supervening disability that destroys an established earning capacity stands on a different footing from a pre-existing condition with which the payer built a family. For claimants, the practical lesson is to plead the chronology precisely and to place the disability certificate's date alongside the marriage date. For respondents with genuine incapacity, the lesson is to prove not merely the condition but its actual effect on earning capacity — and to produce the bank statements that separate pension receipts from earned income, as was attempted here.
This article summarises an interim judicial order for general information. The observations recorded in it are expressly prima facie; the revision petition remains pending before the Delhi High Court.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the husband's argument?
He is deaf and unable to speak, with a disability certificate from a government hospital recording 100% disability. He argued that his communication difficulties made it impossible to earn a livelihood, that his bank credits were disability pension rather than income, and that the Family Court was wrong to attribute an earning capacity to him at the minimum wage for an unskilled worker.
What did the High Court hold?
The Court observed, prima facie, that the disability predated both the marriage and the birth of the child. Having assumed the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood with that condition, the husband could not rely on the disability alone to evade his obligation to maintain his family — particularly the minor child, whose needs weigh heavily at the interim stage.
Was the maintenance amount changed?
Yes. Interim maintenance was reduced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month until further orders: Rs. 4,000 for the minor child and Rs. 2,000 for the wife. Arrears are to be recalculated at the revised rate from the date fixed in the Family Court's order and paid within the timeline that order set. The revision remains pending, with notice issued and the next hearing in February 2027.
Is attributing earning capacity to a disabled spouse lawful?
Courts distinguish between actual earnings and earning capacity. A disability may reduce capacity without eliminating it, and the Family Court had assessed capacity at the minimum wage for unskilled work in Delhi. The High Court's interim view accommodates both ideas: the obligation survives, but the quantum must be realistic about what the respondent can actually earn.