Court rules no patent illegality or perversity in maintenance order despite petitioner's claim of inadequate quantum and delays in disposal
In a significant judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the quantum of interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court in a matrimonial dispute between Annu Garg (petitioner) and Ashish Garg (respondent). The petitioner had sought enhancement of the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000 per month granted by the Family Court, contending that the respondent's income was substantially higher than assessed and that her expenses for education and medical necessities warranted a higher sum.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on December 12, 2018, and no children were born from the wedlock. The petitioner alleged cruelty and dowry-related harassment by the respondent, leading to their separation in April 2019. Various criminal and domestic violence proceedings are still pending between the parties.
The Family Court had assessed the respondent's income at Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 90,000 monthly, considering his hardware supply business and family sanitary shop involvement. It found the petitioner had no independent income and accordingly awarded Rs. 15,000 per month as ad interim maintenance.
The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that substantial bank transactions and discrepancies in the respondent's income affidavits indicated a higher income, and that her current expenses for judicial services preparation, coaching, books, medical care, and insurance justified an enhanced maintenance amount. She also pointed out a delay of about seven years in deciding the interim maintenance application.
The Court relied on established legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004), which emphasize that there is no fixed formula for determining maintenance. Instead, courts must assess the status of the parties, reasonable needs, independent income, standard of living, and financial capacity of the spouse liable to pay maintenance. The Court noted that maintenance cannot be fixed by merely applying a fixed percentage to income.
Critically, the Court held that mere bank transactions cannot be equated with disposable monthly income without a proper examination of their nature and source. It observed that the Family Court's assessment was based on the material on record and that the petitioner had not demonstrated any patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity in the Family Court's order. The Court further clarified that the petitioner is free to seek enforcement of arrears separately or apply for modification of maintenance before the Family Court if there is any material change in circumstances.
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Family Court's discretion in fixing the interim maintenance and underscoring the necessity of a holistic assessment of financial circumstances rather than a mechanical calculation.
Bottom Line:
Interim maintenance - Revisional jurisdiction - Quantum of ad interim maintenance fixed by Family Court cannot be re-assessed in revision in absence of patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity - Mere bank transactions cannot automatically be treated as monthly disposable income - Petitioner may seek enforcement of arrears separately and may also seek modification before Family Court upon material change in circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code Sections 323, 341, 354, 506, 509, 498A, 406, 34; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Annu Garg v. Ashish Garg, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990497
