Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court

“Courts Cannot Award More Than What Is Just” — In a detailed and reasoned decision, the Delhi High Court modified a Family Court’s final order awarding ₹25,000 per month as maintenance to a wife under Section 125 CrPC, reducing it to ₹17,000 per month, while holding that the original amount exceeded a fair share of the husband's proven income.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made it clear that “maintenance under Section 125 must strike a balance between ensuring a dignified life for the dependent spouse and not overburdening the earning spouse.” The Court applied the Annurita Vohra apportionment principle and held that “awarding more than half of the husband's income to the wife, in absence of any children or dependents, is excessive.”

“Maintenance Cannot Be Based on Self-Serving Documents or Artificially Reduced Income” — Court Rejects Husband’s ITRs Filed Post-Dispute

The case stemmed from a maintenance petition filed by Swati Jain against her estranged husband Ankur Jain, following allegations of dowry harassment and desertion. While the Family Court had earlier awarded interim maintenance of ₹14,000 per month, it later enhanced it to ₹25,000 per month in its final judgment dated 28 February 2024, prompting the husband to challenge the order in revision.

The husband’s primary contention was that the enhancement was arbitrary since no new documents were filed by the wife after the interim order, and his subsequent Income Tax Returns (ITRs) showed drastically reduced income. However, the Court rejected these later ITRs, finding them unreliable.

“The ITR for AY 2018–2019, which reflects an annual income of ₹5,18,268 (approx. ₹43,189/month), was admitted by the petitioner in cross-examination. The later ITRs showing lower income were filed under different heads, lacked supporting evidence, and appeared to be attempts to conceal income,” the Court observed.

Justice Sharma added that the salary certificate and rental documents submitted by the husband lacked credibility, noting that the salary slip was undated and the tenancy agreement had no follow-up documentation proving actual rent payments.

“Final Maintenance Is Independent of Interim Maintenance — Section 125 Is Not Section 127”

A critical argument raised by the husband was that final maintenance should not have exceeded the interim ₹14,000, especially since no new evidence was submitted after the interim order. The Court decisively rejected this line of reasoning:

“Interim maintenance is a tentative measure based on prima facie materials. Final maintenance under Section 125 is determined only after full evidence is led. It is not a modification under Section 127, which requires proof of change in circumstances.”

Thus, the Family Court was within its jurisdiction to assess and alter the maintenance amount based on the complete record available at the final stage.

Court Applies Annurita Vohra Formula: One-Third Share Is Justified

The Court placed significant reliance on the Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, which lays down a share-based approach to determine maintenance — assigning two shares to the husband and one share to the wife in absence of children or other dependents.

“On a monthly income of ₹43,189, the wife’s share would be approximately ₹14,000–₹15,000. Allowing for cost-of-living adjustments and inflation, a maintenance of ₹17,000 per month meets the ends of justice,” the Court held.

Justice Sharma noted that while the wife had not produced documentary proof of the husband earning ₹1.5 lakhs per month, the husband’s own admissions and financial records from 2018–19 served as credible benchmarks for determining his capacity.

Maintenance Reduced from ₹25,000 to ₹17,000: Excessiveness Corrected Without Prejudice to Entitlement

Ultimately, the Court modified the Family Court’s ruling and fixed final maintenance at ₹17,000 per month, holding:

“Granting ₹25,000 per month would amount to awarding the wife more than half of the husband's income. Such an award is excessive and not in consonance with judicially recognized principles of fair apportionment.”

The Court further clarified that amounts already paid under the earlier order shall be adjusted against the revised monthly maintenance.

• ITRs are acceptable evidence of income, but subsequent ITRs reflecting sharp declines must be scrutinized for credibility.

• Interim maintenance orders under Section 125 do not restrict the Family Court from making a higher or lower final award, since final adjudication is based on complete evidence.

• Application of Annurita Vohra formula ensures equitable sharing of net income, especially when the husband has no other dependents.

• Maintenance must ensure a dignified standard of living, not luxury, and cannot disproportionately burden the paying spouse.

Date of Decision: 09.12.2025