Maintenance | Judicial Estimation Of Parties' Income Necessary Where Direct Proof Is Unavailable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that judicial estimation is must where there is no direct proof of income of the parties for the purpose of grant of maintenance in matrimonial cases.

“Where income is not fully disclosed or documentary proof is incomplete, courts are not expected to adopt a purely arithmetical method but may apply reasonable inference based on the overall standard of living, lifestyle, and surrounding circumstances of the parties. The underlying rationale is that where direct proof of income is unavailable, judicial estimation becomes necessary,” Justice Sanjeev Narula observed.

The Court was dealing with a husband's plea challenging a trial court order awarding monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 12,000 to her and their two minor children.

It was his case that the Trial Court failed to properly consider the income affidavit filed by him and did not correctly assess his financial capacity.

It was contended that the Trial Court failed to consider that the wife was well-qualified, capable of earning and should have contributed towards the upkeep of the family, rather than solely relying on the grant of maintenance.

On the other hand, the wife contended that she was the sole caregiver for the children and that the husband had not contributed towards their upbringing.

She submitted that she was financially dependent on her father and other family members for sustenance, and that the maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000 per month for three persons was barely sufficient to meet the basic needs of herself and the children.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Narula said that the Trial Court adopted a reasoned and balanced approach in determining interim maintenance, having regard to the income affidavits filed by the parties and after conducting appropriate verification.

The Court observed that it was on the basis of th verification that the Trial Court concluded that the husband had sought to misrepresent material facts in an attempt to evade his maintenance obligations.

The judge observed that an order of interim maintenance is a provisional measure designed to safeguard basic sustenance during the pendency of proceedings, which neither determines the parties' ultimate rights nor precludes a fresh evaluation upon full evidence at the final stage.

“Accordingly, based on the material on record and the financial positions of the parties, the Trial Court rightly awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- each to Respondent No. 2 and her two minor children. In fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, the total amount of ₹12,000/- awarded for three individuals is minimal and barely sufficient to ensure basic sustenance,” the Court said.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1427

Click here to read order