Interim maintenance is fixed on a broad, prima facie view — and revisional courts are slow to redo the arithmetic. In Annu Garg v. Ashish Garg (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 598/2026, decided 29 September 2026), Justice Madhu Jain of the Delhi High Court dismissed a wife's challenge to a Family Court order awarding her ₹15,000 per month, observing that “every expenditure claimed by a party cannot automatically become the amount payable as maintenance”, and that revision lies only where the order below is perverse or contrary to law.
The dispute
The parties married on 12 December 2018. The wife alleged cruelty and dowry harassment, including an assault on her and her mother in April 2019, and the couple separated within months; her maintenance petition was filed on 28 May 2019. Multiple criminal proceedings travelled alongside. On 11 June 2026 the Family Court awarded her interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.
In revision, the wife contended that the husband earned ₹80,000–₹90,000 a month, had no dependents, and showed substantial bank transactions, while she had no independent income — so the award was far too low and should be enhanced.
What the High Court held
Justice Madhu Jain declined to interfere. The Family Court had considered the material on record, made a reasonable assessment of the husband’s income, and exercised its discretion on recognised principles. Two strands of reasoning stand out.
The Court accordingly found no infirmity in the ₹15,000 figure and dismissed the petition.
Where this fits in Delhi maintenance practice
Since Rajnesh v. Neha, maintenance litigation runs on sworn affidavits of income, assets and expenditure from both sides. Family Courts triangulate: the affidavit, the documents behind it, and the life the parties actually led. Two practical consequences follow from decisions like this one.
Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023), the Hindu Marriage Act and the DV Act follows broadly common principles, and Delhi courts discourage duplication: amounts awarded in one proceeding are adjusted in the other. Which statute to move first is a strategic choice that depends on the reliefs needed beyond money — residence, protection, or custody.
Frequently Asked Questions
On what grounds can an interim maintenance order be revised?
A revisional court examines legality and propriety, not correctness of every finding. Unless the Family Court ignored material evidence, applied a wrong principle, or reached a perverse figure, the High Court will not substitute its own assessment. Disagreement with the quantum, without demonstrated perversity, is not a ground.
How do courts assess a husband's income when it is disputed?
Through the affidavits of income and assets both sides must file, bank statements, tax records, and the standard of living shown on the record. Courts can draw inferences from lifestyle and transactions where documents are withheld, but they are not bound to accept a spouse's bare estimate of the other's earnings.
Does a wife's list of monthly expenses fix the maintenance figure?
No. The claimed expenses are one input. The court weighs the husband's established income, his other obligations, the marital standard of living, and the reasonableness of each head of expense. As this judgment puts it, a claimed expenditure does not automatically translate into payable maintenance.
Is the interim figure final for the case?
No. Interim maintenance operates only until the maintenance petition is finally decided, when the court makes a fuller assessment on evidence. Either party can also seek alteration if circumstances change materially — a job loss, a significant rise in income, or new dependents, for example.