Delhi HC draws line between earning capacity and income, caps interim maintenance at ₹1 lakh
The ruling resolved cross-revision petitions filed by both spouses against an October 2021 appellate order. That order had sustained a trial court directive instructing the husband to pay ₹1 lakh monthly from the date the complaint was filed.
- Aug 3, 2026,
- Updated Aug 3, 2026 3:40 PM IST
A high-flying salary package earned during marriage cannot be erased to deny past maintenance, but job losses mean future liabilities must be recalibrated. The Delhi High Court drove this distinction home while upholding an interim maintenance award of ₹1 lakh per month for a woman, making it clear that a professionally qualified wife’s potential to earn cannot be equated with actual income.
Justice Madhu Jain refused to strike down the earlier award for the period when the estranged husband was drawing a substantial paycheck as an Air India employee. However, recognising his altered financial reality after his service ended, the court reduced his ongoing liability to ₹15,000 per month.
Qualification vs Actual Income
Addressing the legal line between potential and reality, the court noted in its July 30 order that while courts can encourage qualified spouses to seek work, it does not strip them of their right to financial support.
“A professionally qualified spouse may be required to make bona fide efforts towards securing suitable employment. Such a direction is neither beyond the jurisdiction nor outside the discretion of the court. However, the capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings,” the court held.
The judge stressed that a subsequent drop in income does not render a past maintenance order illegal from its inception. "It may, however, require a prospective adjustment of the subsisting liability," the court observed.
Escalating legal battle
The ruling resolved cross-revision petitions filed by both spouses against an October 2021 appellate order. That order had sustained a trial court directive instructing the husband to pay ₹1 lakh monthly from the date the domestic violence complaint was filed. Unhappy with the figure, the husband sought a downward revision, while the wife demanded a hike to ₹3.38 lakh per month.
The wife also challenged a directive requiring her to actively seek employment within a year, after which the trial court could reassess the relief.
The couple married in May 2010 under Hindu rites and separated in January 2019. Their minor son currently resides with the husband. Following the separation, the wife lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance for herself and the child.
The legal journey saw the maintenance figure jump from an initial ₹35,000 per month awarded in May 2019 to ₹1 lakh per month in September 2020, backdated to the filing date. The appellate bench had affirmed the higher figure after salary records indicated the husband earned approximately ₹4-5 lakh monthly.
Contentious arguments
Challenging the figures before the High Court, the husband revealed he stopped receiving a salary after November 2020 and was officially terminated by Air India in April 2022.
His counsels, advocates Ajit Kumar and Shivam Singh, argued that the maintenance order rested on a flawed reading of his earnings. They pointed out that he was pulled off flying duties in September 2019 and received no pay for July 2020. They further highlighted that the wife holds a BTech degree in telecommunications and continues to live with her family in a flat owned by the husband.
Since the minor son lives with and is supported entirely by the father, the court noted that expenses incurred for the child could not be factored into the wife’s individual maintenance needs.
Appearing in person, the wife accused the husband of concealing his true wealth and ignoring earlier payment orders. Citing his Form-16 disclosures and the lifestyle maintained during their marriage, she argued that ₹1 lakh per month was insufficient.
Finding no justification to hike the amount for the period the husband earned a substantial salary, the High Court firmly rejected her plea for an enhancement before scaling back his future obligations to match his current standing.
A high-flying salary package earned during marriage cannot be erased to deny past maintenance, but job losses mean future liabilities must be recalibrated. The Delhi High Court drove this distinction home while upholding an interim maintenance award of ₹1 lakh per month for a woman, making it clear that a professionally qualified wife’s potential to earn cannot be equated with actual income.
Justice Madhu Jain refused to strike down the earlier award for the period when the estranged husband was drawing a substantial paycheck as an Air India employee. However, recognising his altered financial reality after his service ended, the court reduced his ongoing liability to ₹15,000 per month.
Qualification vs Actual Income
Addressing the legal line between potential and reality, the court noted in its July 30 order that while courts can encourage qualified spouses to seek work, it does not strip them of their right to financial support.
“A professionally qualified spouse may be required to make bona fide efforts towards securing suitable employment. Such a direction is neither beyond the jurisdiction nor outside the discretion of the court. However, the capacity to earn cannot be equated with actual earnings,” the court held.
The judge stressed that a subsequent drop in income does not render a past maintenance order illegal from its inception. "It may, however, require a prospective adjustment of the subsisting liability," the court observed.
Escalating legal battle
The ruling resolved cross-revision petitions filed by both spouses against an October 2021 appellate order. That order had sustained a trial court directive instructing the husband to pay ₹1 lakh monthly from the date the domestic violence complaint was filed. Unhappy with the figure, the husband sought a downward revision, while the wife demanded a hike to ₹3.38 lakh per month.
The wife also challenged a directive requiring her to actively seek employment within a year, after which the trial court could reassess the relief.
The couple married in May 2010 under Hindu rites and separated in January 2019. Their minor son currently resides with the husband. Following the separation, the wife lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking maintenance for herself and the child.
The legal journey saw the maintenance figure jump from an initial ₹35,000 per month awarded in May 2019 to ₹1 lakh per month in September 2020, backdated to the filing date. The appellate bench had affirmed the higher figure after salary records indicated the husband earned approximately ₹4-5 lakh monthly.
Contentious arguments
Challenging the figures before the High Court, the husband revealed he stopped receiving a salary after November 2020 and was officially terminated by Air India in April 2022.
His counsels, advocates Ajit Kumar and Shivam Singh, argued that the maintenance order rested on a flawed reading of his earnings. They pointed out that he was pulled off flying duties in September 2019 and received no pay for July 2020. They further highlighted that the wife holds a BTech degree in telecommunications and continues to live with her family in a flat owned by the husband.
Since the minor son lives with and is supported entirely by the father, the court noted that expenses incurred for the child could not be factored into the wife’s individual maintenance needs.
Appearing in person, the wife accused the husband of concealing his true wealth and ignoring earlier payment orders. Citing his Form-16 disclosures and the lifestyle maintained during their marriage, she argued that ₹1 lakh per month was insufficient.
Finding no justification to hike the amount for the period the husband earned a substantial salary, the High Court firmly rejected her plea for an enhancement before scaling back his future obligations to match his current standing.