This appeal challenges an interim maintenance award of Rs 50,000 per month. The High Court upheld the award, finding it reasonable relative to the petitioner's income and prior settlement, despite claims of EMI burden.
The plea for quashing the order of interim maintenance was dismissed; the interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month stands affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~68
DEEPAK KUMAR MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek K. Suman, Mr. Sandeep Kr. Singh, Mr. Sachin Verma, Mr. Dharmender Kumar & Ms. Kanchan, Advs.
versus
PRIYA MISHRA ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
O R D E R % 07.02.2024
CRL.M.A. 3758/2024 (for exemption)
CRL.REV.P. 172/2024 & CRL.M.A. 3757/2024 (for stay)
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.REV.P. 172/2024 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 13/12/2024 at 15:47:16
Page 1 of 3
dismissed by the impugned order.
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.REV.P. 172/2024 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 13/12/2024 at 15:47:16
Page 2 of 3
stated that he, himself is staying in the said house. In such a scenario, the payment of EMI cannot be taken as an additional burden for which any benefit can be granted to the petitioner. 11. Moreover, when the petitioner had himself agreed to pay a sum of ₹25,000/- per month in the year 2018. An award of maintenance for a sum of ₹50,000/- per month after more than five years of such ad interim payment of maintenance, in the opinion of this Court, is not unreasonable. This Court in the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra : 2004 (74) DRJ 99 had observed that the court should initially determine the net disposable income of the Husband or the primary earner within the family. If the other spouse is also employed, those earnings should be taken into consideration. This collective income forms the Family Resource Cake, which is then distributed among the family members. The allocation of this "cake" should align with the financial needs of each family member, and an equitable approach would involve dividing the Family Resource Cake into two portions for the Husband, acknowledging his additional expenses incurred in earning, and one portion each for the other members.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 7, 2024 “SS”
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.REV.P. 172/2024 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 13/12/2024 at 15:47:16
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of interim maintenance of Rs 50,000 per month to the appellant's wife and minor child is unreasonable given her husband's income.
Whether the appellant's claim of EMI burden justifies quashing the interim maintenance order.
Whether the interim maintenance award warrants the relief of quashing the impugned order under CrPC Section 482.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep VohraExplained¶28
Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra : 2004 (74) DRJ 99
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Kumar Mishra
Priya Mishra
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
