MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 $~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010470352026 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 SUNDEEP ARORA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Singhal, Mr. Ritik Gupta, Mr.Ayush Haritash. Advocates versus KHUSHALI GROVER .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 29.09.2026 CM APPL. 67713/2026 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 67715/2026 1. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in re-filing the present Appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. 3. The delay of 19 days in re-filing the Appeal stands condoned. 4. The Application is disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026, CM APPL. 67714/2026 5. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/husband 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 challenging the Order dated 28.07.2026 passed by the learned Family Court by which the learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the Respondent/wife under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act and granted pendente lite maintenance @ Rs.55,000/- to the Respondent/wife and the minor son. 6. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as under:- i. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 30.07.2021. Out of the wedlock, a son was born on 28.07.2022. ii. It is the case of the Appellant that on 25.09.2024, the Respondent wife left the matrimonial home of her own volition and without any cogent reason. iii. After leaving the matrimonial home, the Respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the District Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, on 09.12.2025 seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. While the said case was pending before the District Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, the parties have participated in multiple mediation sessions to resolve their disputes. iv. On 03.07.2025, the Appellant filed a Divorce Case No. 3/2025 under Section 10 of the Divorce Act before the learned Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is the case of the Appellant/ husband that the Respondent/wife has subsequently filed a complaint bearing MC No. 615/2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the Appellant, which is also pending. 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 v. It is stated that the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the Respondent wife before the District Court, Gautam Budh Nagar was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.12.2025. vi. On 08.04.2026, an interim order was passed in MC No.615/2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act wherein the Appellant was directed to regularly pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month towards the school fee of the minor child. vii. Subsequently, on 28.07.2026, the learned Family Court has passed the Impugned Order directing a payment of Rs.55,000/- per month collectively, wherein Rs.20,000/- was to be paid to the Respondent herein and as sum of Rs.35,000/- to the minor child from the date of the application. viii. It is this Impugned Order that the Appellant is challenging before this Court. 7. It is the case of the Appellant/husband that the computation of Rs.3 lakh done by the learned Family Court is not correct and is not based on transparent computations. Further, a specific contention has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the computation of Rs.2,60,000/-, i.e., the income of the Appellant/husband, has been done on a gross basis whereas the computation of Rs.43,000/-, i.e., the income the Respondent/ wife, has been done on the net basis. It is stated that this amounts to unequal preferential treatment being given to the Respondent/wife. 8. He states that both the Appellant and the Respondent are well educated and earning handsomely, and the Respondent/wife is not really 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 dependent on the Appellant/husband for her sustenance. Therefore, Rs.20,000/- need not be granted to the wife for her maintenance. The Counsel for the Appellant also contends that he has an old ailing mother to be taken care of and an unmarried sister, whereas the Respondent has no other liabilities. 9. This Court has considered the material on record and the submissions of the Appellant. 10. The Trial Court has analysed the bank account statement of the Appellant and found substantial transactions in his Axis Bank account between 01.01.2023 and 31.12.2025. Similarly, there are also substantial transactions in his ICICI Bank account between 01.01.2024 to 31.03.2025. There are also substantial transactions in his PNB bank account between 01.04.2023 and 28.02.2026 as well. 11. The Trial Court held that the credits received by the Appellant during 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2023 is approximately Rs.40,23,196/- and the total credits from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024 is approximately Rs.48,17,102/- and during the period from 01.01.2025 to 31.03.2025, the total credits received by the Appellant is approximately Rs.5,98,207/-, i.e., roughly Rs.6 lakhs. For the period from 01.04.2025 to 31.12.2025, the total credits received are approximately Rs.9,22,364/-. 12. The Trial Court therefore came to the conclusion that the volume of transactions does not match properly with the income tax returns of the Appellant. In fact, the argument of the Appellant before the Trial Court is that these transactions are because of circulation/re-deployment of funds from one bank to another, which has not been explained properly. The Trial 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 Court has ultimately gone on to the admitted income of the Appellant's husband at Rs.3 lakhs per month and has granted 1/6th of the total emoluments towards the wife and the child. 13. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, while dealing with a case under Section 125 of the CrPC, the purpose of which is also to grant maintenance, the Apex Court has observed that the purpose of grant of maintenance is to prevent the wife from vagrancy and destitution and to provide support to the deserted wife by providing her with food, clothing and shelter. 14. The Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, has acknowledged that the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings where some amount of guesswork or rough estimate takes place as to the amount to be awarded. The Apex Court also took judicial notice of the fact that often both sides submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. 15. This Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, has observed as under:- “2. In other words the court must first arrive at the net disposable income of the Husband or the dominant earning spouse. If the other spouse is also working these earnings must be kept in mind. This would constitute the Family Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed amongst the members of the family. The apportionment of the cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of the family 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 members, which is exactly what happens when the spouses are one homogeneous unit. Ms Geeta Luthra, learned counsel for the Respondent, had fervently contended that normally 1/5th of the disposable income is allowed to the Wife. She has not shown any authority or precedent for this proposition and the only source or foundation for it may be traceable to Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. This archaic statute mercifully does not apply to the parties before the Court, and is a vestige of a bygone era where the wife/woman was considered inferior to the husband as somewhat akin to his chattels. The law has advanced appreciably, and for the better. In the face of Legislatures reluctant to bring about any change over fifty years ago the Courts held that the deserted wife was entitled to an equal division of matrimonial assets. I would be extremely loath to restrict maintenance to 1/5th of the Husband's income where this would be insufficient for the Wife to live in a manner commensurative with her Husband's status or similar to the lifestyle enjoyed by her before the marital severance. In my view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to the Husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to other members. 3. Observations in similar vein have been made by a The learned Single Judge of this Court in Harminder Kaur v. Sukhwinder Singh, 2002 VI AD (DELHI) 797. S.N. Kapoor, J. had opined that one should not be oblivious of the fact that equal status has been given to the Indian women under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that she should live according to the status of her husband along 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 with the child of the parties. The learned Judge had ordered that the income has to be equitably apportioned for maintenance of wife and the child. In his opinion the income should have been divided into five units, two units for each of the parents and one for the young child. On a disposable income of Rs 12,000 he had granted Rs 7,200 per month for the maintenance of the wife and the child.” 16. This Court is therefore not inclined to issue notice and call the Respondent to make her spend more money on litigation as this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Family Court. 17. This Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, has devised a formula for calculating maintenance to be paid to the wife. Applying the said ratio, the amount to be paid to the wife and son is more. However, since there is no such challenge by the Respondent herein, this Court is not issuing any direction on this aspect. 18. It is pertinent to mention that the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, has observed that the amount given as maintenance in other forums, i.e., under Section 125 CrPC, has to be reckoned or adjusted by any Family Court towards maintenance. It is stated that the Appellant herein has been regularly paying a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards the school fee of the minor child in terms of the order passed in a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The said amount has to be adjusted, and therefore, liberty is granted to the Appellant herein to approach the Trial Court for clarification on this aspect. 19. The child is now 3.5 years of age. The requirement of the child at this 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 369/2026 age is quite high. He has to be put in a play school. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fees and other expenses of the child. It is also well settled that the wife and child must have the same standard of living to which they are used to and in the opinion of this Court Rs.8,000/- is extremely meagre. 20. The appeal is disposed of in the above-mentioned terms along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 hsk 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 08/10/2026 at 11:53:53