How much is enough? Interim maintenance litigation often reduces to that single question, and courts have long searched for a method that is neither arbitrary nor falsely precise. In Ayushi Gupta v. Akarsh Gupta, the Delhi High Court worked with a visual answer: treat the family’s income as a cake, slice it into notional units — two for the earning spouse, one for the dependent spouse and one for each child — and distribute accordingly. Applying that approach, the Court enhanced the interim award by half.
The background
The parties married on 7 March 2014 and have two children — a daughter born in 2015 and a son born in 2019. Marital disputes followed, an FIR came to be registered at the wife’s instance, and the husband petitioned for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. In the maintenance proceedings, the Family Court assessed the husband’s income at Rs 50,000 to Rs 60,000 per month and awarded Rs 16,000 in total — Rs 8,000 each for the wife and the minor son. The wife appealed, seeking enhancement.
What the High Court held
The Division Bench enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs 24,000 per month — Rs 12,000 for the wife and Rs 12,000 for the minor son. The Court reached the figure by dividing the husband’s estimated income into five notional units: two units for the husband himself, and one unit each for the wife and the two children. The judgment emphasised that maintenance exists to prevent destitution and to provide genuine support to the separated spouse, and that the distribution must reflect both the family’s financial capacity and the lifestyle the wife enjoyed before the separation.
| Stage | Monthly figure | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| Family Court (interim) | Rs 16,000 | Rs 8,000 wife + Rs 8,000 minor son |
| Delhi High Court (on appeal) | Rs 24,000 | Rs 12,000 wife + Rs 12,000 minor son |
Why the unit method matters
Quantum is the least predictable part of maintenance law, and unpredictability breeds litigation. The unit-based approach gives both sides a transparent starting point: counsel can compute the likely band from the income estimate before the first hearing, and departures from the band require reasons. At the same time, the Bench was careful to say that no formula is rigid — the slices move with school fees, medical needs, housing and the pre-separation standard of living. The method channels discretion; it does not abolish it.
Practice pointer: the income estimate drives everything in a unit-based calculation. Affidavits of income, assets and expenditure under the Rajnesh v. Neha framework — bank statements, ITRs, credit card summaries — are where interim maintenance cases are won and lost. A respondent who under-discloses invites the court to estimate against him; a claimant who overstates needs without vouchers invites a discount.
The statutory frame
Interim maintenance in matrimonial proceedings rests on Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, in the summary jurisdiction, on Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 125 CrPC. Whatever the provision invoked, the exercise is the same: a provisional, needs-based transfer pending the final decree, revisable when circumstances change. Ayushi Gupta is a useful, current illustration of how Delhi’s appellate bench expects that exercise to be performed — openly, arithmetically, and with the children’s unit treated as sacrosanct.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the family resource cake approach?
It is a working method for dividing a household’s income when spouses separate. The estimated income is split into notional units — commonly two units for the earning spouse, recognising work-related expenses, and one unit each for the dependent spouse and children. In this case the Court divided the husband’s estimated monthly income into five units across the husband, wife and two children.
What maintenance was finally awarded?
The Family Court had awarded Rs 16,000 per month in all — Rs 8,000 each for the wife and the minor son. On appeal, the Delhi High Court enhanced the figure to Rs 24,000 per month, comprising Rs 12,000 for the wife and Rs 12,000 for the minor son, after assessing the husband’s income at roughly Rs 50,000 to Rs 60,000 per month.
Is the method a rigid formula?
No. The Bench expressly avoided rigid formulas. The unit-based division is a starting framework that must be adjusted for the family’s actual financial capacity, the standard of living the wife enjoyed before separation, and the children’s needs. It disciplines the exercise of discretion; it does not replace it.
Does interim maintenance require proof of exact income?
Rarely. At the interim stage courts work from the affidavits of income and assets mandated by Rajnesh v. Neha, drawing reasonable estimates where disclosure is incomplete. Here the Court proceeded on an assessed income band rather than a precisely proven figure, which is the accepted approach for a provisional, pendente lite determination.