Delhi HC enhances interim maintenance but underscores courts must account for circumstances, cost of living abroad, not simply convert foreign earnings at exchange rates.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has clarified that a husband’s foreign income cannot be mechanically converted into Indian currency for the purpose of awarding maintenance to a wife, urging a reasoned assessment of circumstances rather than formula-based calculations. The judgement was delivered on an order dated 23 December 2025 and reported on 2 January 2026.
Court & Bench
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan heard cross-petitions challenging a Family Court’s interim maintenance order.
Case Title
The litigation arises from proceedings between X v. Y, where both spouses challenged the amount of interim maintenance originally fixed by a Family Court.
Background and Key Legal Issue
The wife, residing in India, sought enhancement of interim maintenance awarded by a Family Court at ₹50,000 per month. She contended that her husband, working as a software engineer with a multinational in the United States, earned substantial income in US dollars, reportedly $150,300 to $232,000 per annum, and that when converted to Indian rupees the figures exceeded ₹14 lakh per month.
She asserted she had no income, having left employment in December 2021, and that she was dependent on her husband. The husband countered that the wife was highly qualified and previously employed, earning significant salary, and challenged the maintenance award.
The principal legal issue was whether the High Court should determine interim maintenance by direct conversion of foreign income into Indian rupees by applying conventional domestic maintenance formulas, or whether other factors must be considered.
High Court’s Ruling
The Delhi High Court held that “mere earning in foreign currency” does not, by itself, entitle a wife to claim maintenance by mechanically converting the husband’s foreign income into Indian rupees and applying Indian formulae without due regard to attendant circumstances.
While enhancing the interim maintenance amount from ₹50,000 per month to ₹1,00,000 per month, the Court reiterated that determination of interim maintenance is not an exercise capable of mathematical precision and must consider available material, factual circumstances, lifestyle indicators and admitted earning capacity.
The enhanced amount is to be paid from the date of filing the application, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.
Reasoning of the Court
Justice Mahajan noted that where one spouse earns abroad and resides in a foreign country, that spouse also incurs living expenses abroad. Therefore, direct conversion of foreign earnings into Indian rupees at prevailing exchange rates is not a robust or fair basis for maintenance calculations.
The Court observed that interim maintenance is intended to secure a reasonable amount to ensure that neither party is financially handicapped during litigation, not to equate the maintenance figure with the entirety of the earning spouse’s income. It emphasised that where complete and candid disclosure of income is lacking, courts must rely on informed estimation rather than strict numeric conversion.
Practical Implications
- Flexible Assessment: The Court’s direction underscores that interim maintenance awards, especially in cross-border employment contexts, require flexible, circumspect evaluation rather than strict application of exchange rate conversions.
- Standard of Living Abroad: Judges must account for varying costs of living and expenditure abroad when assessing maintenance, not merely gross foreign earnings.
- Interim Maintenance Principles: The principle that interim maintenance cannot be determined with mathematical precision reinforces judicial discretion in balancing fairness, sustainability and the factual matrix of each case.
- Disclosure Obligations: The ruling highlights the importance of full and fair disclosure of income by both parties during maintenance proceedings, particularly where one spouse works internationally.
The judgment adds clarity on how courts should approach the valuation of foreign income when determining maintenance obligations, reinforcing that interim maintenance requires reasoned judicial estimation rather than mechanical currency conversion.
