New Delhi: In a landmark ruling aimed at improving the quality and consistency of maintenance orders across family courts, the Delhi High Court has laid down sweeping guidelines on the assessment of income, the recording of reasons, and the need for judicial sensitivity in dealing with women’s employability and childcare responsibilities.
Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Wednesday set aside an interim maintenance family court order and remanded the case for a fresh, reasoned determination. The court stressed that maintenance proceedings must be understood as “human stories, not mere legal disputes”, and directed that the judgment be circulated to all family courts and Mahila courts in Delhi.
The case arose from a revision petition filed by a husband, Tasmeer Qureshi, who had challenged a 30 March 2024 order of the family court (South-East District, Saket) directing him to pay Rs 20,000 per month as interim maintenance—Rs 15,000 to his wife, and Rs 5,000 to their minor son.
The couple married on 3 October 2019, under Muslim rites. In January 2021, Asfia filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that Qureshi had assaulted her, demanded dowry, and asked her to either terminate her pregnancy or provide Rs 10 lakh for his business.
She had filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs 30,000 a month for herself and Rs 3,00,000 as medical expenses for her pregnancy. During the pendency of the proceedings, she had a son while living at her parents’ house.
The family court concluded that Qureshi, an MBA graduate previously employed with Blue Star Ltd (2013–2019), had concealed his income and falsely claimed unemployment. It relied on his HDFC Bank records, which showed credits of Rs 15.45 lakh and debits of Rs 16.86 lakh between January 2021 and July 2023, and noted that he owned a Volkswagen Polo and had not disclosed details of a separate ICICI account. The family court held that his claim of having only Rs 3,000 for monthly expenses “did not appeal to common sense” and found him to be a “man of means”.
While concurring with the finding that the husband had suppressed his income, the high court found the family court’s order fatally flawed because it failed to explain how the figure of Rs 20,000 per month was reached.
“The order does not disclose any assessment—either actual or notional—of the petitioner’s monthly income on the basis of which this quantum was determined,” Dr Justice Sharma held.
She added, “Assessing income is the first and most crucial step, as maintenance cannot be determined in vacuum”, observing that the absence of a clear income assessment undermined the fairness of the order. The HC set aside the maintenance order and directed the family court to issue a fresh, reasoned decision within one month.
Guidelines for family courts
Noting a recurring pattern of “mechanical” and “cryptic” orders in maintenance cases, the high court issued a comprehensive set of ‘Broader Observations and Guiding Principles’ for all family courts. “This court has repeatedly found itself flooded with petitions… which reveal a pattern of deviation from the settled legal principles governing such cases,” the judgment stated.
Even interim maintenance orders, the court held, must not be devoid of reasoning. While acknowledging the need for expediency, Dr Justice Sharma cautioned that “expedition cannot come at the cost of reason”. Each order must reflect what material was considered, what income or earning capacity was assumed, and how that assumption translated into the figure of maintenance.
She warned against two extremes—orders that reproduce pleadings verbatim without analysis, and those that are so brief that they reveal no reasoning at all.
The court addressed how family courts often apply minimum wages while determining notional income. It said this method must be used “with accuracy and care”, identifying the relevant state, skill category, and effective date.
Minimum wages, the court clarified, are only a floor, not a ceiling, and may be enhanced if evidence indicates a higher earning capacity.
Recognising social realities
The high court went beyond legal technicalities to address social realities that shape maintenance disputes, urging a realistic and compassionate approach toward women who have left the workforce after their wedding or after childbirth.
“The mere fact that a wife was employed before marriage cannot lead to the conclusion that she continues to be employed,” the court said. “In India, many women are compelled, persuaded, or advised to leave employment after marriage to devote themselves to domestic responsibilities. The sacrifice of a career cannot later be portrayed as an act intended to extract money from the husband.”
Recognising childcare as a major constraint on employability, the court observed, “Childcare is not a marginal or secondary responsibility, but a full-time commitment” that limits a mother’s ability to work full-time. To deny maintenance merely because a wife “was working before marriage” ignores how caregiving responsibilities reshape her time, opportunities, and independence.
The court reiterated that a wife’s modest earnings do not bar her from claiming maintenance. Citing precedents, it noted, “Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean, mere survival.”
The test is whether her income suffices to maintain herself and her child at the same standard of living as in the matrimonial home.
Dr Justice Sharma categorically ruled that living with parents after separation cannot justify reducing or denying maintenance. “The husband’s legal obligation cannot be shifted upon the wife’s parents, however well-off they may be,” the court said, citing Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain.
She added that returning to the parental home often represents “a collapse of emotional security and social standing”, frequently accompanied by stigma and dependence.
Concluding the judgment, she underscored that maintenance cases intertwine law, compassion, and human dignity: “Maintenance orders affect the dignity, sustenance, and stability of lives, requiring a careful balancing of compassion and reason, law and life, fairness and practicality.”
(Edited by Viny Mishra)