Manav Tandon vs. Sidhi Luthra & Anr.
Background
The petitioner-husband and respondent No. 1-wife married in 2019 and had a son in 2023, but began living separately from June 2025. The wife and child filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, claiming monthly expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/- and stating the husband earned around Rs. 32-35 lakhs a year. The Family Court, noting the husband had not produced his ITRs or salary slips despite being asked to, estimated his income at roughly Rs. 2 lakhs a month (based on bank credits from his employer) and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- per month (Rs. 37,500/- each) to the wife and son, after allowing him a Rs. 50,000/- deduction for supporting his own parents. The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
Decision Breakdown
The husband argued his salary slips and ITR actually showed a lower income (around Rs. 1.68-1.76 lakhs net monthly, Rs. 17.81 lakhs annually) and that the Family Court's Rs. 2 lakh estimate, plus directing him to pay roughly 50% of his income, was excessive, and that the wife's earnings from private tuitions had been ignored. Justice Jalan held that a High Court's revisional jurisdiction over such orders is narrow: it does not permit re-appreciating evidence or reassessing facts unless the order suffers from a jurisdictional error or gross irregularity, citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and reiterating the Supreme Court's view in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena that Section 125 CrPC exists to prevent destitution of a wife and children and secure their dignified sustenance. Since the husband had not placed his salary slips/ITRs before the Family Court at the relevant time, and neither his housing-loan liability nor the wife's tuition income was backed by any documents on record, the Family Court's estimate was a reasonable assessment on the material then available, and Rs. 75,000/- per month for a wife and minor child was not excessive or disproportionate. The petition was accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to either side's right to prove their actual income/liabilities later before the Family Court itself.
Lesson Learnt
Interim maintenance orders are provisional and based only on what each side actually places on record at that stage: a spouse who withholds salary slips, ITRs, or proof of other liabilities cannot later expect the High Court to second-guess the Family Court's reasonable estimate, since revisional courts intervene only for clear jurisdictional errors, not to reweigh evidence.