New Delhi [India], December 15 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Monday rejected a revision moved by a husband and upheld the order of Rs 80000 monthly interim maintenance to his wife and minor child. The man had challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate directing him to pay the interim maintenance to his estranged wife and child.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Surbhi Sharma Vats rejected the revision moved against the order passed by the judicial magistrate on October 16, 2025.
The revision court said that there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate. The court said, "The facts and circumstances of the present matter, as discussed above, do not call for any interference in the order of interim maintenance dated 16.10.2025 passed by Mahila Court." "Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal stands dismissed, and the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Learned Trial Court is hereby upheld," ASJ Vats ordered on December 15.
While rejecting the revision, the court said that the appellant husband has failed to produce any cogent material to rebut the findings of the judicial magistrate or to show that his wife is financially independent. "The necessities of respondent wife, the responsibility of appellant husband to maintain his wife, taking into consideration the status of parties and the standard of living that the respondent wife/ parties is accustomed to, considering the assets, liabilities and income of the Appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has correctly assessed the paying capacity of the Appellant husband and an amount of Rs 80,000 per month awarded for wife and minor child, as an interim maintenance, does not seem to be on higher side in the present case," the Court observed in the order.
Husband had challenged the magistrate's court order on the grounds that the interim maintenance order was passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the husband.
On the other hand, Advocate Vivek Sharma appeared for the wife (respondent). He submitted that the appellant has deliberately suppressed material facts, made repeated false statements regarding his employment and financial capacity, and has consistently attempted to mislead both the Trial Court and the Revision Court in order to evade his lawful obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife and minor daughter.
It was also submitted that the appellant persistently claimed to be unemployed and without any regular source of income before the Trial Court, and relying on his misrepresentations, the Trial Court initially awarded a meagre sum of Rs 6,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife and minor child. However, only after the respondent/wife produced documentary evidence showing that the appellant was, during the relevant period, employed with a foreign company and drawing a respectable salary, the appellant/husband was constrained to admit the truth, the counsel said.