Interim maintenance disputes are won and lost on one question: what does the paying spouse really earn? Where documents are thin, courts fall back on structured guesswork — qualifications, lifestyle, past declarations and the statutory minimum wage. The Delhi High Court's judgment in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 366/2026, decided on 28 September 2026, is a compact illustration. A husband appealed against a Family Court order fixing Rs 6,000 per month for his minor daughter in proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming he earned only Rs 4,000-5,000 a month. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal without even issuing notice, finding the claim impossible to credit from a graduate — and contradicted by his own income declaration in earlier domestic violence proceedings.
The litigation history
The parties married in Delhi in 2012; a daughter was born that November. Disputes arose early. The wife initiated domestic violence proceedings, with a further complaint in 2015, and in 2017 a Mahila Court ordered maintenance of Rs 3,000. In December 2023 the husband filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty, and the wife applied under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance in those proceedings. The Family Court awarded Rs 6,000 per month for the minor daughter from 9 May 2024, payable with arrears in six instalments, and directed that the Rs 1,000 being paid in the DV proceedings be adjusted. The husband appealed to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, after a 15-day delay that the Bench condoned.
The income question
The husband\'s case was that he earned only Rs 4,000 to 5,000 a month, making Rs 6,000 excessive. The Division Bench tested the claim against three markers and found it failed each one.
Qualification
The husband is a graduate — his asserted earnings fell below what a graduate commands under Delhi\'s minimum wage notifications under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
His own declaration
In the earlier domestic violence proceedings he had declared an income of Rs 9,337 per month — nearly double his present claim.
The child\'s needs
School fees alone do not cover a child\'s requirements; both parents must contribute, and the mother cannot be left to bear all the expenses.
Measured so, Rs 6,000 per month — effectively Rs 5,000 after the DV adjustment — was neither exorbitant nor unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed without notice to the respondent. The Bench noted that the cruelty allegations in the pending divorce petition were irrelevant to the interim maintenance question, which turns on means and needs, not matrimonial fault.
The working rules this judgment reinforces
| Rule | Application |
|---|---|
| Minimum wage as an income floor | A claimed income below the statutory minimum wage for the person\'s qualification invites judicial notice of suppression, consistent with the approach in Rajnesh v. Neha |
| Prior declarations bind in spirit | Income affidavits and declarations filed in any maintenance forum — DV Act, Section 125 CrPC / 144 BNSS, HMA — will be read against the declarant across proceedings |
| Adjustment, not duplication | Amounts paid under one statute are set off against awards under another for the same period |
| Fault arguments wait for trial | Allegations of cruelty or desertion do not dilute interim maintenance for a child |
Why it matters in daily practice
Family Court litigation in Delhi runs on the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure that Rajnesh v. Neha made mandatory, and this judgment shows the downstream consequence of careless or convenient figures: a party\'s own earlier declaration became the decisive exhibit against him. Litigants should treat every income disclosure — in a DV proceeding, a Section 144 BNSS petition or an HMA application — as a single continuing record, because that is how the courts treat it. And for respondents resisting what they consider an inflated award, the appellate route under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act remains open but narrow: without demonstrated perversity in the Family Court\'s assessment, a Division Bench will not re-weigh the figures.
This article summarises a Delhi High Court judgment on interim maintenance for general information. Maintenance quantification depends entirely on the income, assets and needs proved in each case. Nothing here is legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do courts assess income when the spouse claims to earn very little?
By triangulation: educational qualifications and earning capacity, the statutory minimum wage for that qualification level, lifestyle and expenditure, and — most powerfully — the person's own earlier statements. Here the husband was a graduate claiming Rs 4,000-5,000 monthly, below the Delhi minimum wage for graduates, and had himself declared Rs 9,337 per month in prior DV Act proceedings; the court rejected the claimed figure.
Can maintenance paid in one proceeding be adjusted in another?
Yes. Following the Supreme Court's framework in Rajnesh v. Neha, maintenance awarded in overlapping proceedings is adjusted, not accumulated. The Family Court here directed that the Rs 1,000 being paid under the domestic violence proceedings be adjusted against the Rs 6,000 fixed under Section 24 HMA.
Are both parents liable for a child's maintenance?
Yes. The court held that both parents must contribute to the child's upbringing and that school fees alone do not exhaust a child's needs — food, clothing, healthcare, transport and incidentals continue regardless. The mother's earnings do not absolve the father; they calibrate the shares.
Is an appeal available against interim maintenance of a Family Court?
An appeal lies to the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Delays can be condoned on sufficient cause — the 15-day delay here was condoned — but appellate interference with discretionary interim maintenance is reserved for perversity or misapplication of principle, not mere dissatisfaction with the figure.