Why the amount needed reconsideration
The appeal concerned the quantum of maintenance, not a general determination of divorce rights. The wife submitted that the children’s expenses exceeded the amount ordered and that her medical treatment affected her ability to meet the shortfall. The Court considered the financial record and the fact that both children lived with her. Those circumstances are necessary context for understanding the figures awarded. (Paragraphs 17–21.)
Salary deductions did not all have the same character
The Court observed that provident-fund and employee stock-purchase plan contributions would ultimately benefit the husband, unlike income tax or professional tax. It therefore did not treat every deduction on a salary statement as a permanent reduction of the resources relevant to maintenance. The distinction concerns the economic destination of the money. The judgment should not be reduced to an assertion that every PF contribution is voluntary or that all payroll deductions must always be ignored. (Paragraph 20.)
What the revised directions actually say
The children’s maintenance was fixed at ₹75,000 per child per month, totalling ₹1.5 lakh, effective from 1 January 2025. The Court separately increased the wife’s maintenance to ₹30,000 per month, noting her medical expenses and the earlier interim direction that had not appeared in the High Court’s final order. The effective-date language for the children should not be automatically attached to every other direction without checking the order. (Paragraphs 22–23.)
The order leaves room for changed circumstances
The appellant was not prevented from seeking further enhancement if circumstances changed. The husband was directed to give effect to the directions within three months, and the Court noted the undertaking already recorded by the High Court. The case provides a concrete example of examining needs and real financial benefit rather than accepting a net-pay figure at face value. It does not set a universal percentage or fixed maintenance rate for other families. (Paragraphs 23–25.)
A question this judgment answers
Was ₹1.5 lakh awarded separately to each child?
No. The amount is ₹1.5 lakh for both children together, or ₹75,000 per child per month. The wife’s ₹30,000 maintenance is a separate direction. (Paragraphs 22–23.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shweta Hingorani, S.R. Desai, Naseem Ahmed, Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Esha Thawal, Ms. Sneha Mondal.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 10509-10510 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 of the High Court for the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MATAPP(FC) No. 299 of 2024