Dismissed¶¶24

Mohammad Ehtesham Nayab & Ors. v. Sadaf Saleem

Delhi HC11 Nov 2025CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/118/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance dispute between husband and wife (governing statute not named in the order). Keywords: interim maintenance; Mahila Court Tis Hazari Courts; Court of Sessions appeal CA No. 35/2024; CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 118/2025; CRL.M.A. 7910/2025; temporary/contractual job in Dubai; variable income on contract renewal; ₹25,714 per month each; ₹1,80,889 per month income; wife and two minor children; variation application before Trial Court; trial of defences and counter allegations; Delhi High Court; Justice Amit Mahajan; order dated 11.11.2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the interim maintenance direction stands undisturbed, and the pending application (CRL.M.A. 7910/2025) stands disposed of. ¶¶24

Mohammad Ehtesham Nayab & Ors. Vs Sadaf Saleem — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the interim maintenance direction stands undisturbed, and the pending application (CRL.M.A. 7910/2025) stands disposed of.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the temporary/contractual nature of Petitioner No. 1's employment in Dubai, and the consequent variability of his income dependent on contract renewal, is a ground to nullify or interfere with the interim maintenance order. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The temporary/contractual nature of Petitioner No. 1's job and the resulting variability of his income cannot be a ground to nullify the interim maintenance order passed on the basis of the assessment of his income.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner No. 1 is duty bound to maintain his wife and minor children; the interim maintenance of ₹25,714/- per month for each dependent is not unreasonable considering his approximate monthly earnings of ₹1,80,889/-, as raising and providing for two children demands substantial effort and dedication.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The impugned order is only an order of interim maintenance; the defences raised by the petitioners, with the allegations and counter allegations, are matters for trial and must be decided after the parties have led their evidence.ratio¶¶16
Any variation in Petitioner No. 1's income can be brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court by filing an appropriate application, which the Trial Court would be duty bound to consider and act upon.ratio¶¶17
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Court of Sessions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Mahajan, J.) dismisses CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 118/2025 challenging the order dated 20.11.2024 of the learned Court of Sessions in CA No. 35/2024, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against the Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts' order dated 20.12.2023 fixing interim maintenance of ₹25,714/- per month each payable by Petitioner No. 1 to the respondent-wife and two minor children, assessed on his approximate monthly income of ₹1,80,889/-. Held: (i) the temporary/contractual nature of Petitioner No. 1's Dubai employment and the fluctuating income dependent on contract renewal cannot be a ground to nullify the interim order; any variation in income is to be placed before the learned Trial Court by an appropriate application; (ii) raising and providing for two children demands substantial effort and dedication, and the husband/father is duty bound to maintain the wife and minor children, the quantum being not unreasonable; (iii) the defences, allegations and counter allegations are for trial after the parties lead evidence. Petition dismissed; pending application disposed of.

¶1

$~20

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 118/2025 & CRL.M.A. 7910/2025

¶4

MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM NAYAB & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. SS Hora, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

SADAF SALEEM .....Respondent Through: Ms. Aanchal & Ms. Misha, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 11.11.2025

¶8

By the present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 20.11.2024 (hereafter ‘ the impugned order ’) passed by the learned Court of Sessions in CA No. 35/2024 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby Petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,714/- per month each to the respondent/ wife and two minor children.

¶9

The learned Mahila Court, taking note of the fact that Petitioner No. 1 was earning a sum of approximately ₹1,80,889/per month, granted the interim maintenance as noted above and kept the matter for the parties to lead evidence.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 118/2025

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 14/11/2025 at 11:45:00

¶15

Petitioner No. 1 is on a temporary/ contractual job in Dubai and, therefore, the status of his income keeps changing and is dependent on his extension/ renewal of the contract.

¶16

The learned Appellate Court took note of the said submission and rightly held that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application and take recourse of the available legal procedure/ remedies depending on the changing circumstances, however, the same cannot be a ground to nullify the interim order which has been passed on the basis of the assessment of Petitioner No. 1’s income. 5. The petitioners have not disputed the domestic relationship with the respondent. It is also not disputed that the respondent is taking care of the minor children. 6. Raising and providing for the interests of two children is a challenging task which demands substantial effort and dedication. Petitioner No. 1, in such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, is duty bound to maintain the wife and minor children for which the interim maintenance of ₹25,714/per month for each of the dependents, is not unreasonable considering that the petitioner was found to have been earning a sum of approximately ₹1,80,889/- per month. 7. It is not disputed that the impugned order is only an order of interim maintenance. The defences raised by the petitioners, along with the allegations and counter allegations, would be the subject matter of the trial, and would have to be decided after the parties have led their evidence.

¶17

Any variation in the income can be brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court by filing an appropriate application on

¶18

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 118/2025

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 14/11/2025 at 11:45:00

¶22

which Court would be duty bound to pass appropriate orders.

¶23

I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶24

The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶25

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶26

NOVEMBER 11, 2025 “SS”

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 118/2025

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 14/11/2025 at 11:45:00

Mohammad Ehtesham Nayab & Ors. v. Sadaf Saleem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ehtesham Nayab & Ors. v. Sadaf Saleem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Alias Passion Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Pardeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mr. Sukash Chandrashekar @ Sukesh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

State Vs Gurcharan Singh @ Babbu & Ors.

Smt. Sushma Singh Vs State & Ors. & Ors.

Sh. Gaurav Sharma Vs the State Gnct of Delhi & Anr.