Money moving through a husband’s bank account is not by itself proof of what he earns, the Delhi High Court has held, declining to raise a wife’s interim maintenance of Rs 15,000 a month and reiterating that maintenance cannot be fixed by applying a set percentage to the earning spouse’s income.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a wife’s revision petition seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance awarded to her by a Family Court, holding that transactions in the husband’s bank account cannot, without examination of their nature and source, automatically be treated as his monthly disposable income [Annu Garg v. Ashish Garg].
Justice Madhu Jain, in an order passed on September 29, 2026, found no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the Family Court’s order of June 11, 2026, and left the wife free to seek modification before the Family Court.
Background of the case
The parties married on December 12, 2018 and have no children. The wife alleges that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, and that after an alleged assault on her and her mother at her parental home on April 13, 2019 the couple began living separately. Several proceedings followed, including FIRs under the IPC, a case under Section 498A IPC against the husband and his family, and a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, all of which are pending. The allegations remain to be tested in those proceedings.
She filed for maintenance on May 28, 2019, along with an application for interim maintenance, which the Family Court at Tis Hazari decided only on June 11, 2026. Recording that the husband supplies hardware material and also sits at his father’s sanitary shop, the Family Court assessed his income at Rs 80,000 to Rs 90,000 a month and, noting that the wife had no independent income, awarded her Rs 15,000 a month as ad interim maintenance.
The wife’s case
Before the High Court, counsel for the wife argued that Rs 15,000 bore no reasonable proportion to the husband’s assessed income, that he had no other dependants, and that his bank statements showed transactions running into lakhs, while discrepancies in his income affidavits cast doubt on the income he had disclosed. She has a B.Com. and an LL.B. but is preparing for the judicial services and does not earn, and her updated affidavit disclosed substantial spending on coaching, books, medical needs and insurance. Counsel also pointed out that the interim application had remained pending for about seven years and that the husband was in arrears of more than Rs 12 lakh. The husband was not represented at the hearing.
No fixed percentage
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha and the Delhi High Court’s ‘Family Resource Cake’ approach in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, Justice Jain said that there is no straitjacket formula for maintenance and that neither decision lays down a rigid mathematical rule. The Court held:
“The aforesaid principles make it clear that maintenance cannot be determined merely by applying a fixed percentage to the income of the earning spouse. The Court is required to undertake an overall assessment of the financial circumstances and reasonable needs of the parties.”
Bank transactions and claimed expenses
On the bank statements, the Court held:
“However, the mere existence of transactions in a bank account cannot, without examination of their nature and source, automatically be treated as equivalent to monthly disposable income. The precise nature of such transactions and the respondent’s actual financial position can be examined by the learned Family Court on the basis of complete evidence.”
Similarly, while the wife’s lack of income and her claimed expenditure were relevant, the Court said that every expense claimed by a party cannot automatically become the amount payable, and that reasonable needs must be judged against the overall finances of both sides. The seven-year delay in deciding the interim application was noted, but the Court held that it did not by itself make the quantum perverse.
Revision is not reassessment
Finding that the Family Court had considered the parties’ financial circumstances and exercised its discretion, the High Court held that the petition essentially sought a reassessment of quantum, which cannot be done in revision absent perversity or material irregularity. On the alleged arrears, it said non-compliance with a maintenance order is a separate issue from the legality of the amount, and the wife may pursue enforcement remedies. Questions about the husband’s actual income, bank transactions, assets and liabilities, and her reasonable expenses, were left to the Family Court at the final stage, with the clarification that the order would not prejudice either party there.
Case Title: Annu Garg v. Ashish Garg [CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 598/2026]
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
For the Petitioner: Mishika Singh and Akshya Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: None