The Delhi High Court has held that a wife is not entitled to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the period during which she was employed and earning. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 880]

The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar modified a Family Court order that had directed the husband to pay her ₹5,000 per month from the date of filing of her maintenance application.

It held that the wife was employed when she filed the maintenance application in January 2021 and continued working until June 2024.

Consequently, the Court directed that the ₹5,000 monthly interim maintenance would be payable only from July 1, 2024, when she became unemployed.

The Court was hearing the husband's appeal against a Family Court order directing him to pay ₹5,000 per month as pendente lite maintenance from January 8, 2021, till disposal of the divorce petition.

The parties had married on October 25, 2015. They began living separately in November 2020 and the wife subsequently instituted divorce proceedings on the ground of cruelty and also sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of HMA.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife was financially stable and had admitted in her pleadings that she was working at a Bata showroom. He also disputed the Family Court's assessment of his income at ₹22,000 per month, claiming that he earned only ₹16,500 per month while working as an operator at his father's photostat shop.

The husband further argued that he was residing and working in Haryana, and therefore the Family Court ought not to have relied upon the Delhi Government's minimum-wage notification while assessing his income.

The High Court noted that the minimum wages notified for Haryana were broadly similar to those in Delhi and that the husband had failed to produce credible evidence establishing a lower income-earning capacity. Accordingly, the assessment of his monthly income at ₹22,000 did not warrant interference.

The Court also rejected the husband's reliance on a salary certificate issued by his father showing a monthly salary of ₹16,500. It observed that the certificate by itself, could not conclusively establish his income as it was unsupported by other cogent documentary evidence.

On the wife's entitlement to maintenance, the Court noted that she had stated in an application filed under the Guardians and Wards Act that she was financially independent and capable of securing a future for her daughter.

Her affidavit before the Family Court also stated that she had worked as a sales helper at a Bata showroom on Saturdays and Sundays for ₹7,000 per month. She was removed from the job in June 2024 as the owner no longer required additional staff.

The Court therefore held, “She is not entitled to the interim maintenance” for the period from January 8, 2021 to June 2024.

Appearance: Prakash Chandra, Advocate for Appellant

Case title: B v. N

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 880

Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 439/2024

Click here to read order