In Manav Tandon v. Sidhi Luthra & Anr., CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 (decided 1 September 2026), Justice Prateek Jalan of the High Court of Delhi dismissed a husband's revision petition against a Family Court order awarding interim maintenance of ₹75,000 per month — ₹37,500 each to the wife and the minor son — under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The decision illustrates how revisional courts approach interim maintenance: disputed questions of income and liability are left for final adjudication, and interference is reserved for awards that are perverse or plainly disproportionate.
Background of the case
The parties were married under Hindu rites on 21 April 2019 and a son was born on 11 September 2023. They separated on 10 June 2025. The wife, for herself and the child, sought maintenance claiming monthly expenses of about ₹1,50,000 and asserting that the husband earned in the range of ₹32–35 lakh annually. By order dated 11 May 2026, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹75,000 per month, split equally between the wife and the minor son, after estimating the husband's income at approximately ₹2,00,000 per month and allowing him a deduction of ₹50,000 towards support of his parents.
The husband carried the matter to the High Court in a revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the award was excessive relative to his true income and commitments.
The High Court's approach
Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the revision. The Court held that the sum of ₹75,000 per month for a wife and a minor child, judged against the Family Court's estimate of income, could not be characterised as excessive or disproportionate. Crucially, the Court emphasised that the final determination of the husband's income and liabilities would take place in the main proceedings on the strength of evidence — the interim stage is not the forum for a mini-trial on account books and salary slips.
The revisional court's question is not "what figure would we have fixed?" but "is the figure the Family Court fixed a legally sustainable one on the material before it?" Where the answer is yes, the award stands even if a different judge might have arrived at a somewhat different number.
How interim maintenance is actually worked out
What this means for litigants
For claimants, the decision confirms that a well-supported interim award will not readily be unsettled in revision, and that the child's maintenance stands on an independent footing alongside the spouse's. For payers, the lesson is procedural: the interim stage turns almost entirely on the quality of the income affidavit and supporting documents. A payer who believes the estimate is inflated is better served by leading cogent evidence at the final hearing — and by scrupulous compliance in the meantime, since default in paying interim maintenance can lead to the defence being struck off and to enforcement measures.
The case also reflects the continuing transition between the old and new criminal codes: the underlying maintenance petition was under Section 125 CrPC, while the revision was filed under the corresponding BNSS provisions, a combination courts in Delhi now deal with daily. The substantive principles remain the same under Section 144 BNSS, which replaced Section 125 CrPC for proceedings instituted after 1 July 2024.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an interim maintenance order be challenged in revision?
Yes. An order of interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) passed by a Family Court can be challenged before the High Court. Revisional scrutiny is, however, narrow: the High Court examines legality and proportionality, not a fresh appreciation of disputed income figures, which are reserved for the final hearing.
How did the Family Court arrive at ₹75,000 per month in this case?
The Family Court estimated the husband's monthly income at about ₹2,00,000 after allowing a deduction of ₹50,000 towards support of his parents, and apportioned ₹37,500 each to the wife and the minor child. The High Court found this neither excessive nor disproportionate at the interim stage.
Are deductions for supporting parents allowed while fixing maintenance?
Courts may make reasonable allowance for a payer's genuine commitments, such as support of dependent parents, when estimating disposable income. In this matter the Family Court deducted ₹50,000 per month on that account before apportioning maintenance, and the High Court did not disturb that approach.
Is the interim figure final for the rest of the case?
No. Interim maintenance operates only until final determination. The High Court expressly noted that the actual income and liabilities of the parties would be established through evidence in the main proceedings, where the figure can be revisited either way.