S.125 CrPC | Technical Delays, Procedural Lapses Can't Defeat Purpose Of Interim Maintenance To Wife & Minor Child: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the purpose of interim maintenance to wife and minor child under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that interim maintenance under the provision in question is meant to provide immediate relief to a spouse and minor children who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves.

“While the right to fair opportunity and adherence to natural justice are essential, it is equally true that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the very purpose of the provision,” the Court said.

Justice Sharma dismissed the plea filed by a husband challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs. 50,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife and the minor child.

It was the husband's case that the impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of the facts and was based solely on the wife's pleadings and income affidavit, without affording him a fair opportunity to present his case or respond adequately.

It was also submitted that the amount of interim maintenance was highly unrealistic and beyond his financial capacity, especially considering that he was unemployed and dependent on his ailing mother, who was suffering from stage-three brain tumor.

The counsel appearing for the State contended that the Family Court had passed a well-reasoned and justified order after considering the material placed on record, including the income affidavits of both parties.

It was submitted that the amount was neither excessive nor arbitrary, keeping in view the needs of the wife and the minor child, and the standard of living they were accustomed to.

In her application and affidavit, the wife alleged that the husband earned over Rs. 4 lakh per month from rental income and was financially well-off.

While the said contention was denied by the husband, the Court noted that his “bare denial” cannot be accepted at face value, especially when he had not filed income tax returns or bank statements to corroborate his version.

The Court observed that at the stage of interim maintenance, a detailed trial or adjudication on the actual income is neither warranted nor possible. It added that a prima facie assessment is to be made on the basis of pleadings, affidavits and such material as may be available on record.

“The learned Family Court, in the present case, appears to have undertaken a balanced consideration of the circumstances of both parties and has awarded an amount which, on the face of it, does not appear to be excessive or disproportionate,” the Court said.

It noted that the minor child, who was about 5 years old, was presently in the care and custody of the wife and his daily needs including food, clothing, education, healthcare, and other expenses were being borne solely by her.

“The revisionist, as the biological father, cannot abdicate his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his minor child. The argument advanced on behalf of the revisionist that the respondent herself is qualified and capable of earning does not absolve the husband from his statutory duty under Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly in respect of the child,” the Court said.

It added that an able-bodied person cannot shirk his responsibility to maintain his wife and children.

Justice Sharma concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the interim maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, as the same was proportionate to the standard of living of the parties and the needs of the minor child.

“In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.05.2024 warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.The revision petition alongwith pending applications, if any, is accordingly dismissed,” the Court said.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 940

Click here to read order