In Ashutosh Rai Asthana v. Yamita Rai Asthana, CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024, decided on 11 August 2026, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the High Court of Delhi revised a Family Court order of interim maintenance, holding that the court below had “tilted solely towards the income of the petitioner” while ignoring the other factors the Supreme Court has made mandatory. The decision is a compact restatement of how interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC — now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — is actually to be quantified.
The facts before the Court
The parties married in 1995 and have two children, both of whom live with the husband; the elder is pursuing an MBBS course at his expense. The wife holds an MBA in Finance along with other diplomas, receives rental income of about ₹10,450 per month and interest income of roughly ₹4,400 per month from fixed deposits, and resides in a three-bedroom flat owned by the husband. The husband runs a cargo business, with his income tax return for AY 2022–23 showing income above ₹63 lakh. Before any order was passed he was voluntarily paying ₹20,000 per month.
On the wife’s application under Section 125 CrPC filed in April 2021, the Family Court fixed interim maintenance at ₹30,000 per month from the date of filing. The husband challenged the quantum in revision before the High Court.
The balancing the statute demands
Justice Banerjee accepted that the Family Court had noted the correct factors — drawn from the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha — but found that it had not given them due weight, resting the award effectively on the husband’s income alone. The judgment lists the considerations that must actually enter the arithmetic:
The claimant’s side
Her reasonable wants measured against the standard of the matrimonial home; her independent income, rental receipts, interest and property; her qualifications and capacity to earn; and the accommodation she already enjoys.
The respondent’s side
His true income and capacity to pay; the number of persons he is legally bound to maintain; and his existing liabilities — here, the entire educational and living expenses of both children, including a professional course.
The object
Interim maintenance exists to prevent vagrancy, not to equalise wealth at the interlocutory stage. The quantum is provisional, tied to the material on record, and open to adjustment at the final determination.
Weighing the wife’s own income streams, her qualifications, the rent-free residence, and the fact that the husband alone bears the children’s expenses, the High Court reduced the interim maintenance from ₹30,000 to ₹25,000 per month, effective from the date of the application in April 2021. The claim itself was not disturbed: even a qualified wife with some independent income remained entitled to support from a husband earning many multiples of her receipts.
The decision does not dilute the maintenance jurisdiction. It polices its method. A Family Court that recites the Rajnesh v. Neha factors but fixes the figure on the respondent’s income alone commits a revisable error — whichever side that error favours.
What each side should take from the ruling
For claimants, the lesson is candour and completeness: an affidavit of income and assets that fairly discloses rental, interest and other receipts, and then demonstrates the shortfall against reasonable needs, is far stronger than one that leans entirely on the respondent’s prosperity. For respondents, the ruling confirms that the children’s expenses actually borne, the accommodation provided, and the claimant’s qualifications and income are all matters worth placing on record with documents at the interim stage itself — they are not arguments to be saved for trial.
Both sides should remember the ceiling on this exercise: the order is interim. The figure fixed now binds no one at the final hearing, where the fuller record — cross-examined affidavits, business accounts, changed circumstances — governs afresh. But since interim orders in matrimonial litigation commonly run for years, the discipline this judgment enforces on how the first figure is set matters in practice as much as the final decree.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of interim maintenance?
To prevent vagrancy — to ensure that a spouse who cannot maintain herself is not left without support while the main proceedings are decided. It is a provisional arrangement fixed on the material available at that stage, and it neither decides the final maintenance nor the merits of the matrimonial dispute.
Which factors govern the amount of interim maintenance?
The considerations set out by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha: the status of the parties, the claimant's reasonable needs, her independent income and property, her qualifications and employment history, the number of dependants the paying spouse supports, his liabilities, and his actual capacity to pay. No single factor — including the husband's income — is decisive by itself.
Does a qualified or earning wife lose the right to maintenance?
Not automatically. Qualifications and earning capacity are relevant factors, not disqualifications. In this case the wife's MBA, rental and interest income reduced the quantum but did not defeat the claim; the Court still sustained interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month against the husband's substantially higher income.
Can a Family Court's interim maintenance order be challenged?
Yes. Orders under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS granting or quantifying interim maintenance can be tested before the High Court in revision. The High Court will not reappreciate every finding, but it interferes where the Family Court has ignored mandatory considerations or fixed the amount on an incomplete view of the record.