Maintenance Fixation Must Use Minimum Wages of Husband’s State Rather Than Court’s Location

Maintenance jurisprudence in India has consistently evolved to balance two competing concerns: preventing destitution of a dependent spouse and ensuring fairness to the earning spouse. Courts are increasingly confronted with cases where the husband either suppresses his true income or pleads meagre earnings that are inconsistent with his qualifications, work capacity, or lifestyle.

In such situations, the judiciary has had to evolve pragmatic standards to ensure that maintenance orders reflect economic reality rather than procedural convenience or forum-based assumptions.

A recent judgment of the Delhi High Court, delivered on 5 January 2026 by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood @ Sonu (2025), exemplifies this evolving approach. The Court reaffirmed that maintenance cannot be determined mechanically, and that courts must assess income on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the State where the husband works, not where the court is located. This judgment strengthens the principle that forum convenience cannot distort economic assessment.

Legal Framework of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023] is a secular, social welfare provision intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It obligates a person with sufficient means to maintain his wife, children, and parents if they are unable to maintain themselves.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature, and the object is not to punish but to provide immediate relief. The standard of proof is not as rigorous as in a criminal trial, and courts are empowered to draw reasonable inferences from the available material.

Facts of Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood @ Sonu

The petitioner-wife, Arshi Parveen, challenged an interim maintenance order of ₹2,500 per month passed by the Family Court, Shahdara, Delhi. She contended that:

• She was unemployed, educated only up to Class XI, and had no independent source of income.
• The respondent-husband was a graduate and had misrepresented his occupation prior to marriage.
• The husband claimed to earn only ₹10,000 per month as a special educator with an NGO in Uttar Pradesh, but failed to produce consistent documentary proof.

The Family Court accepted the husband’s claim and awarded ₹2,500 per month as interim maintenance. Aggrieved, the wife approached the Delhi High Court seeking enhancement.

Issue

• Whether interim maintenance should be fixed using the husband’s State minimum wages when his actual income is not proven.

The High Court’s Reasoning

Rejection of Unsubstantiated Pleas

The Court first dealt with the husband’s claim that the wife was earning as a nursery teacher. It held that mere bald assertions without documentary proof cannot be accepted, particularly at the interim stage. Consequently, the wife could not be presumed capable of maintaining herself.

Suppression of Income by the Husband

The Court noted several inconsistencies in the husband’s financial disclosures:

• Incomplete bank statements were filed, covering only a limited period.
• There was no consistent monthly credit of ₹10,000 as claimed.
• The alleged income was below even the minimum wages for a skilled or graduate worker.

Such selective disclosure justified drawing an adverse inference against the husband.

Use of Minimum Wages as a Benchmark

The Court reaffirmed that where a husband withholds or suppresses income details, courts are entitled to assess income on the basis of minimum wages. This principle flows from Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan and Rajnesh v. Neha, which emphasise that an able-bodied man cannot evade his statutory duty to maintain his wife.

However, the Court stressed that the application of minimum wages must be accurate and context-specific.

State-Specific Application of Minimum Wages

Relying on earlier Delhi High Court precedent in Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar, the Court laid down a clear rule:

1. Minimum wages vary from State to State.
2. The relevant State is where the husband ordinarily resides or is employed, not where the wife resides or where the court is situated.
3. Applying Delhi’s minimum wages merely because proceedings are pending in Delhi is erroneous if the husband works in another State.

In the present case, it was undisputed that the husband lived and worked in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the minimum wages applicable in Uttar Pradesh alone could be considered.

Assessment of Income and Enhancement of Maintenance

At the relevant time, minimum wages for a graduate or skilled worker in Uttar Pradesh were approximately ₹13,200 per month. The Court assessed the husband’s income at this figure for the purpose of interim maintenance.

Considering:

• The wife’s lack of independent income,
• The assessed income of the husband, and
• The social justice object of Section 125 CrPC,

the Court enhanced interim maintenance from ₹2,500 to ₹3,500 per month, payable from the date of filing of the petition, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s ruling in Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood @ Sonu marks a significant clarification in maintenance jurisprudence. By holding that minimum wages of the husband’s State of employment, not the court’s location, must be applied, the Court has ensured that maintenance determinations are grounded in fairness, accuracy, and economic realism.

This decision strengthens the protective purpose of Section 125 CrPC while preventing arbitrary or mechanical approaches. It is likely to serve as an important precedent for Family Courts across the country, guiding them towards more reasoned and equitable maintenance orders in the future.

In essence, the judgment reiterates a simple but profound principle: maintenance must be based on real earning capacity, not geographical happenstance.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams