The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Suranjan Saha v. Rumpa Saha (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 370/2023), pronounced on 23 December 2025, is a significant reaffirmation of the principles governing maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The decision addresses recurring disputes surrounding income disclosure, applicability of Supreme Court guidelines, and the extent to which courts can scrutinize a non-earning spouse’s financial conduct at the interim stage.
At its core, the judgment emphasizes that interim maintenance proceedings are meant to provide immediate relief, not to conduct a mini-trial on financial minutiae. The ruling carries important lessons for matrimonial litigation, particularly for appeals challenging maintenance orders passed by Family Courts.
Factual Matrix and Procedural History
The marriage between Suranjan Saha (appellant-husband) and Rumpa Saha (respondent-wife) was solemnised in January 2001. A daughter was born out of the wedlock in April 2004 and has remained in the custody of the respondent-wife. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since 2015.
In February 2020, the appellant-husband initiated divorce proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA before the Family Court, Dwarka. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the respondent-wife filed an application seeking maintenance pendente lite, claiming that she had no independent income and was fully dependent on the appellant for her and her daughter’s sustenance.
By an order dated 22 March 2021, the Family Court directed the appellant to pay ₹25,000 per month each to the respondent-wife and their daughter. The Court noted that the appellant was earning a net monthly income of approximately ₹1,44,932 while employed as a Senior Advisor with Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellant initially approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Subsequently, in light of settled law that such orders are appealable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petition was converted into a regular matrimonial appeal.
Appellant’s Challenge to the Maintenance Order
The appellant-husband mounted a multi-pronged challenge to the Family Court’s order. His primary contention was that the Family Court failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and by the Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma and Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney.
According to the appellant, the respondent-wife’s income affidavit was accepted without scrutiny, despite lacking mandatory supporting documents such as Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and bills of expenses. He further argued that the respondent-wife had access to financial resources, pointing to a bank transfer of ₹82,000 to her brother and certain mutual fund investments, which allegedly demonstrated that she was a “person of means”.
The appellant also relied on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed in 2015, which, according to him, had settled issues of maintenance and custody. Additionally, he challenged the maintenance awarded to the daughter, arguing that he had no supervision over the utilisation of funds and that the Family Court failed to consider his request for a joint bank account.
Interim Developments During the Appeal
An interesting aspect of the case was the series of interim orders passed during the pendency of the appeal. Initially, the High Court partially stayed the Family Court’s order and reduced the wife’s maintenance from ₹25,000 to ₹10,000 per month, while maintaining the daughter’s maintenance.
Subsequently, due to the respondent-wife’s non-appearance, the Court stayed even the reduced maintenance payable to her and later stayed the daughter’s maintenance as well, granting liberty to the respondent to seek vacation of the stay. However, no such application was filed, and the stay continued until final adjudication.
These developments highlight the procedural complexities that often arise in maintenance litigation and underscore the importance of consistent participation by parties.
High Court’s Analysis: Rajnesh v. Neha Guidelines
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the High Court’s nuanced interpretation of the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines. The Court held that the appellant’s reliance on these guidelines was technically misplaced.
The Bench clarified that the purpose of Rajnesh v. Neha is to ensure transparency and prevent concealment of income. However, the requirement to file ITRs is predicated on the existence of taxable income. A non-earning spouse or homemaker with nil income is not statutorily required to file ITRs, and insisting on such documents would amount to demanding the impossible.
The Court observed that, in such cases, the absence of ITRs actually supports the claim of no independent income rather than undermining it. Importantly, the Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA are summary in nature, requiring a prima facie assessment rather than a detailed forensic inquiry.
Assessment of the Wife’s Alleged Income and Assets
The High Court firmly rejected the appellant’s argument that isolated bank transactions or minor investments could be treated as proof of independent income. The Court noted that the respondent-wife and her daughter were residing at her parental home, and her father was a retired government employee.
In ordinary human conduct, financial interdependence with parents and siblings in such circumstances is natural. A single transfer made in 2018 or the existence of some savings could not be equated with a steady income stream sufficient to deny maintenance.
The Court held that maintenance cannot be refused merely because the wife has some savings, unless it is shown that she has a consistent and sufficient source of income to maintain herself and the child at a standard comparable to that of the husband.
Effect of the 2015 MoU on Statutory Maintenance
Another crucial issue was the appellant’s reliance on the MoU executed in 2015. The High Court categorically held that maintenance pendente lite is a statutory right and cannot be overridden by a private agreement, particularly one executed several years prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings.
Moreover, the respondent-wife had alleged that the MoU was signed under duress. Even otherwise, the Court emphasized that the needs of the dependent spouse and child must be assessed in the present context, based on current circumstances and the earning capacity of the husband.
Rejection of Supervisory Control Over Child’s Maintenance
The appellant’s request for a joint bank account to monitor the expenditure on the daughter was also rejected. The Court held that issues of guardianship, custody, or supervisory control fall outside the scope of an appeal against an interim maintenance order. Introducing such considerations at this stage was described as a procedural incongruity.
Conclusion and Significance of the Judgment
Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order. The maintenance awarded was held to be reasonable, proportionate to the appellant’s income, and aligned with the object of Section 24 of the HMA—to ensure that the dependent spouse and child are not left destitute during litigation.
The appeal was dismissed, interim orders were vacated, and the appellant was directed to clear all arrears within one month.
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation that maintenance pendente lite is about sustenance, dignity, and fairness, not technical nitpicking. It sends a clear message that courts will not allow income disclosure guidelines to be misused as tools of delay or deprivation, especially when the earning spouse has sufficient means and the dependent spouse has none.
Back to Blog