$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 111/2026, CRL.M.A. 6030-6032/2026 and CRL.M.A. 7017/2026 ABHISHEK TANDON .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shantanu Ghosh with Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocates. versus CHITRA GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. K.Venkatraman and Mr. Avinash, Advocates. Ms. Husian CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the Family Court, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi granting Rs.8,000/- as interim maintenance in favour of the minor child – Master Virat. 2. The learned Family Court had applied the minimum wages which are applicable in Delhi and has found that the minimum wages for the category of ‘Graduate and Above’ is Rs.24,356/- per month which was taken as Rs.24,000/- (rounded up). Bearinging in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases it has been found that the minor child requires regular financial support for education, clothing, nutrition, medical care, and daily needs etc. Paragraph nos.4 to 7 of the said order are extracted as under: “4. In the absence of disclosure of income, the Court is entitled This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:29:43 to rely upon the minimum wages applicable in Delhi. As per the Labour Department, Government of NCT of Delhi Notification dated 26.09.2024, effective 01.10.2024, the minimum wage for the category “Graduate and Above” is Rs.24,356/- per month, which is taken as Rs.24,000/- (rounded) for the purpose of assessment. 5. The principles governing interim maintenance are well settled. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that maintenance for the child must be fixed keeping in view the status of the parties and the basic needs of the child. In Manish Jain v. Akansha Jain, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent hardship and ensure dignity, and the earning capacity of the respondent may be assessed even in absence of strict proof. In Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that family income must be equitably apportioned so that the child enjoys a similar standard of living. In Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, essential factors such as needs of the child, earning capacity of the respondent, and cost of living were identified as guiding principles. 6. The minor child requires regular financial support for education, clothing, nutrition, medical care, and daily needs. The petitioner alone cannot be expected to bear all such expenses. The respondent, being educated, young (around 30 years), and physically capable, is presumed to have the ability to earn at least the minimum wages applicable to his qualification. 7. Considering the respondent’s notional income at Rs.24,000/- and applying the consistent judicial practice of fixing one-third of such income towards the minor child, this Court finds that the fair contribution from the respondent would be Rs.8,000/- per month.” 3. The impugned order is interim in nature. The submissions of the parties will have to be considered during the course of the trial. The Court, at this stage, is not inclined to interfere into the same. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 6, 2026/ tr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:29:43