Dismissed¶¶24

Shashi v. Arya Kumar & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Aug 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/295/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: interim maintenance pendente lite; Section 19 Family Courts Act 1984 appeal; maintenance Rs. 5,000 per month per child; three children; earning wife beauty parlour rented shop Rs. 15,000 rent; husband salary Rs. 35,000 private company; arrears from date of application vs 2022; application pending 11 years; expedite final disposal divorce petition HMA No. 360/2017 Family Court Dwarka; appeal dismissed no interference; stay application failure to pay maintenance pending.

What did the court decide?

As the Appellant-wife operates a beauty parlour from a shop rented at Rs. 15,000/- per month, it is reasonable to expect that she is generating some income with which she can support herself; accordingly her claim to pendente lite maintenance was not sustained. ¶¶17

Shashi Vs Arya Kumar & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether grounds exist to interfere with the Family Court's interim maintenance order dated 06.08.2025 — covering the adequacy of the Rs. 5,000/- per-month-per-child maintenance for the three children, the absence of pendente lite maintenance to the wife, and arrears commencing from 2022 rather than the 2014 application date. +2 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

In assessing interference, the Court noted the Respondent has already been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month for each of his children (Rs. 15,000/- in total) out of his monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/-, and is additionally responsible to maintain his parents.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The purpose of granting maintenance pendente lite is to ensure that the dependents, including the wife and children, are able to sustain themselves during the pendency of the case.obiter¶¶17
In the peculiar facts of the case — the maintenance application having remained pending for nearly 11 years — the Court found acceptable the Family Court's order granting arrears of maintenance from 2022, emphasising that this is only an interim maintenance.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 295/2025 (Delhi HC, Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., 18.08.2025) — Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the wife against the Family Court, Dwarka's interim maintenance order dated 06.08.2025 (HMA No. 360/2017), which directed the husband (earning Rs. 35,000/- p.m. in a private company) to pay Rs. 5,000/- p.m. per child for three children (Rs. 15,000/- total, arrears from 2022). Court held: (i) the wife, running a beauty parlour from a shop rented at Rs. 15,000/- p.m., is an earning individual reasonably able to support herself, so no pendente lite maintenance to her; (ii) arrears from 2022 acceptable as the maintenance application lay pending nearly 11 years, the award being interim only; (iii) no grounds to interfere — appeal and pending applications dismissed. Family Court urged to finally dispose the divorce petition, pending since 2014, preferably within one month.

¶1

$~74

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 295/2025, CM APPL. 50568/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 50569/2025 (Ex. from filing certified copies of the annexures A1-A4)

¶4

SHASHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Aarushi Jain, Mr. Yojit Pareek, Ms. Ankita, Mr. Prassant Kumar Sharma and Mr. Chetan Charitra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

ARYA KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R % 18.08.2025

¶10

The present Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, by the Appellant against the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in HMA No. 360/2017.

¶11

The Appellant before this Court is the wife of the Respondent. It is undisputed that the Appellant has rented a shop at a rate of Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of operating a beauty parlour. Furthermore, the Appellant is responsible for the maintenance of three children, including a major daughter and son, as well as a minor son.

¶12

The Respondent is earning Rs. 35,000/- per month while working in a private company. The Family Court has directed the Respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for each of his children.

¶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 22/08/2025 at 12:21:44

¶15

The main divorce petition is currently at the stage of final disposal and is fixed for hearing on 23.08.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has made detailed submissions, including the contention that the wife cannot be denied maintenance and that the maintenance granted to the children is insufficient. He further submits that an application for stay of proceedings on account of failure to pay maintenance is also pending but has yet to be decided. Additionally, he contends that the Court had directed the husband to pay maintenance from the year 2022, whereas the application was filed in 2014.

¶17

This Court has considered the submissions. The purpose of granting maintenance pendente lite is to ensure that the dependents, including the wife and children, are able to sustain themselves during the pendency of the case. 6. The primary objective is to determine whether or not a decree of divorce should be granted in the main case, which is scheduled for final disposal on 23.08.2025. 7. Though the learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the wife cannot be denied maintenance pendente lite, however, it is undisputed that she is an earning individual. The Appellant has rented a shop for the purpose of operating a beauty parlour, and given that she is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/-, it is reasonable to expect that she is generating some income with which she can support herself.

¶18

The Respondent has already been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/per month for each of his children, amounting to a total of Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance, from his monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/-. Additionally, the Respondent is also responsible to maintain his

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 22/08/2025 at 12:21:44

¶21

parents.

¶22

With regard to the submission made by the learned counsel that maintenance is typically granted from the date of application, this Court is of the view that, in the peculiar facts of this case— particularly considering that the application for maintenance remained pending for nearly 11 years—the Family Court has passed an order granting arrears of maintenance from 2022. At the cost of repetition, this is only an interim maintenance.

¶23

In light of the aforementioned facts, no grounds have been established to interfere with the Order passed by the Family Court. However, it is pertinent to note that the main divorce petition, filed in 2014, has been pending for the past 11 years. Accordingly, the Family Court is urged to make a sincere effort to ensure the final disposal of the divorce petition, preferably within a period of one month from today.

¶24

The present appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, is dismissed.

¶25

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶26

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶27

AUGUST 18, 2025/nd/ds

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 22/08/2025 at 12:21:44

Shashi v. Arya Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi v. Arya Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Sawhney Vs Puneet Sharma

Chanda Kumari Vs Nitesh Sharma

Saswati Mukherjee Vs Prasanta Mukherjee

Hitesh Mehta Vs Priya Mehta

Abhinav Batra Vs Manvi Hora

Girish Kumar Gangadharan Vs Pranamika Nair

Meenakshi Gautam Vs Sanjay Gautam

Sh. Nikhil Kapoor Vs Smt. Deepshikha Kapoor

Deepak Mehrotra and Another Vs Axis Bank and Others

Pramod Thatoi Vs Doris Chung Gim Lian & Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Puneet Sharma

Suman Singh Virk & Anr. Vs Deepika Prashar & Anr.

Sarita Sharma Vs Maya Devi through Savita

Shri Suraj Saxena Vs Shri Sarabjit Singh