Case at a Glance
In a divorce case, a Family Court estimated the husband’s income at about Rs 45,000–50,000 a month and ordered Rs 15,000 a month as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband appealed, saying he lived with his parents, spent Rs 8,000 a month and was paying loans and credit cards, but he did not disclose where he worked. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted that his own bank statement showed total credits of over Rs 30.45 lakh over about three years, for which he offered ’hardly any explanation’. The appeal was dismissed and the Rs 15,000 award was found ’just, fair and reasonable’.
The parties married on 9 December 2021 in Delhi; there is no child. After disputes the wife left the matrimonial home and filed HMA Petition No. 763/2024 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, along with an application under Section 24 seeking Rs 55,000 a month and Rs 25,000 as litigation expenses. In her income affidavit she stated that she is a nursing graduate with no professional income and monthly expenses of Rs 25,000.
The husband’s affidavit said he stays with his parents with monthly expenses of Rs 8,000, but did not state where he works or his source of income. He relied on a loan of about Rs 3.76 lakh from AU Finance Bank, about Rs 2.25 lakh due on an SBI credit card, and two other cards. By order dated 17 July 2026 the Family Court assessed his income at about Rs 45,000–50,000 a month and fixed Rs 15,000 a month from the date of the petition until its disposal; Rs 15,000 had already been awarded as litigation expenses.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Family Court justified in estimating the husband’s income and fixing interim maintenance at Rs 15,000 a month when he did not disclose his employment and his bank account showed large unexplained credits?
When the Husband Will Not Disclose, Some Guesswork Is Allowed
The Bench (Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar) began with Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 11 SC CK 0009, (2021) 2 SCC 324, observing that parties in maintenance matters often give incomplete particulars, and that the object of maintenance is to ensure the dependent spouse is ’not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage’. It set out the factors from Rajnesh — status of the parties, reasonable needs, the claimant’s education and employment, the payer’s income and liabilities, and standard of living — and referred to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 08 SC CK 0046, (1997) 7 SCC 7, Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 03 SC CK 0128, (2017) 15 SCC 801, Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2018) 09 SC CK 0056, (2019) 12 SCC 303, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2007) 11 SC CK 0118, (2008) 2 SCC 316, and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, (2007) 04 DEL CK 0015, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622, which recognises that ’some guesswork is not ruled out’ where the true sources of income are hidden.
Applying these principles, the Court examined the husband’s Union Bank of India statement for 21 October 2022 to 21 September 2025: credits totalled Rs 30,45,021.42 and debits Rs 30,45,006.53, with individual credits such as Rs 4 lakh on 20 March 2024 and Rs 2 lakh each on 18 May, 3 July and 10 July 2024. The husband offered ’hardly any explanation’ for these entries. In the absence of an explanation, the Court held that the Family Court’s estimate of Rs 45,000–50,000 a month could not be called ’sans any material’, and there was no ground to interfere under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Family Court’s order was within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
- Unexplained credits in the husband’s bank account justified the Family Court’s estimate of his income at about Rs 45,000–50,000 a month.
- Interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 a month to the wife was ’just, fair and reasonable’.
- The appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act was dismissed with pending applications.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that bank statements can expose income that a spouse leaves out of the income affidavit.
- Loans and credit-card dues do not automatically reduce maintenance when the payer conceals his real earnings.
- It confirms that courts may make a reasoned estimate of income where the payer withholds information, following Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Spouses Seeking Maintenance
- Ask for the other side’s bank statements; large or regular credits can support a higher income estimate.
- Interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA runs from the date of the petition until the case is decided.
For Counsel
- Where income is hidden, invite the court to estimate it, citing Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622.
- An appeal against interim maintenance will rarely succeed without a clear explanation for the financial record.
Key Takeaways
- Rs 15,000 a month interim maintenance was upheld by a Division Bench.
- Credits of over Rs 30 lakh in three years, left unexplained, supported the income estimate.
- Not naming one’s employer in the income affidavit counts against the husband.
- High Courts interfere with Section 24 awards only if they are without material or unreasonable.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do courts decide interim maintenance when a husband hides his income?
They look at the overall material, including bank statements and lifestyle, and may make a reasonable estimate. Here unexplained bank credits supported the Family Court’s assessment.
Does paying EMIs and credit-card bills reduce maintenance?
Liabilities are a relevant factor under Rajnesh v. Neha, but in this case they did not help the husband because he did not explain the large credits in his account or disclose his work.
Is interim maintenance payable from the date of the order or the petition?
In this case the Family Court ordered it from the date of the divorce petition until its disposal, and the High Court left that undisturbed.
Conclusion
The judgment is a practical reminder that the income affidavit is only the starting point. When the paper trail tells a different story and the payer cannot explain it, courts will draw the obvious inference.
Practical takeaway: Before resisting a maintenance award, be ready to explain every significant credit in your bank account — silence will be read against you.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com