HARPREET SAWHNEY VS. PUNEET SHARMA

2026 INSC 822Page 1 of 12

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.31815-31816 OF 2025)

HARPREET SAWHNEY …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PUNEET SHARMA …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution

of India arises out of the the impugned Final Judgment and

Order dated 14.08.2025 and Clarification Order dated

02.09.2025, passed by the High Court of Delhi in

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 299/2024 with CONT.CAS(C) 634/2025,

which partly enhanced the child maintenance to

Rs.1,25,000/- for both children and closed the contempt

proceedings against the Respondent-husband. The

Clarification Order dated 02.09.2025 in CM Appl. 55169/2025

Page 2 of 12

granted the Respondent-husband six months to clear accrued

arrears but did not address the other two grounds of

clarification sought in the clarification application.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The marriage between the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-

husband was solemnized on 09.12.2004 in accordance with

Sikh rites in New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock of the parties,

two sons were born. The first son, namely, Master Aryan

Puneet Sharma was born on 29.01.2011 and the second son,

namely, Master Aadi Sharma on 24.07.2014.

4. Eventually the matrimonial relationship between the parties

deteriorated and on 21.06.2018, the Respondent-husband left

the Appellant-wife and their two children. In these

circumstances, the Appellant-wife instituted a divorce petition

under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

registered as HMA No. 1931/2019 (earlier HMA No.

545/2019), before the Additional Principal Judge, Family

Court, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

5. Along with the divorce petition, the Appellant-wife filed an

application under Section 24 and Section 26 of the Hindu

Marriage Act (‘HMA’, for short), 1955, on 17.09.2019, seeking

Page 3 of 12

interim maintenance pendente lite of Rs.2,00,000/- per month

for herself and the two minor children, alongside litigation

costs on grounds that, inter alia, she could not afford the

school fees for both children alongside the EMI payment for

the property purchased with the Respondent-husband on her

salary.

6. By an order dated 08.01.2021, the Additional Principal Judge

disposed of the application for interim maintenance, declining

to grant pendente lite maintenance to the Appellant but

granted the same for the minor children. Therein it was

observed that the Appellant-wife's net monthly income was

Rs.91,000/- compared to the Respondent-husband's net

income of Rs. 2,70,000/-, and that the Appellant-wife is

paying the EMIs of Rs. 48,888/- for the flat and availing the

residence of said flat. The Family Court, thus, awarded

Rs.37,000/- per child per month from 17.09.2019 to

31.12.2020, and enhanced it to Rs.40,000/- per child per

month with effect from 01.01.2021.

7. The Respondent-husband challenged the Family Court’s order

dated 08.01.2021 before the Delhi High Court in

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 42/2021. On 23.03.2021, the High Court

Page 4 of 12

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the interim maintenance

quantum. The High Court observed that the maintenance

estimation involves reasonable approximation rather than

mathematical exactitude. It noted the undisputed net monthly

incomes of the contesting parties and highlighted that the

Appellant-wife independently bore a monthly mortgage EMI of

Rs.48,888/- apart from school fees of approximately

Rs.23,000/- per child per month, as well as the other expenses

required to be borne for the children such as private tuition,

sports and other extra-curricular activities. Issues regarding

visitation were left open for the Family Court to resolve,

recording the Appellant-wife’s willingness for bi-monthly,

initially supervised visitation.

8. On 06.05.2021, the Respondent-husband filed an application

under Section 151 CPC read with Section 26 HMA seeking

enhanced physical and virtual visitation, a monitoring

mechanism over the maintenance funds (alleging that the

Appellant-wife had swindled Rs.40 lakhs and accumulated Rs.

1.5 crores in savings), reduction of maintenance to Rs.

20,000/- per child per month due to pandemic school fee

discounts, and return of personal documents including the

Page 5 of 12

original documents of the Registration and Occupancy

certificates of the house, as well as the original identity

documents. The Appellant-wife filed a reply on 22.07.2022

denying all allegations, pointing out that even under the

Respondent-husband's proposed formula, combined costs

exceeded Rs.95,000/- per month once the actual school fees

of Rs.55,690/- per month were added.

9. On 06.10.2022, the Appellant-wife filed an application seeking

enhancement of child maintenance from Rs.40,000/- per child

per month (total Rs.80,000/- per month) to Rs.85,000/- per

child per month (total Rs.1,70,000/- per month) submitting

documented monthly child expenditures of Rs.1,66,847/-,

increased combined school fees of Rs.55,690/- per month at

Shiv Nadar School and frequent delays in maintenance

remittances by the Respondent-husband. The Respondent-

husband opposed the application on 17.08.2023, claiming the

claimed expenses were exorbitant, disputing the EMI

calculation, alleging pandemic fee-waiver retention, and

accusing the Appellant-wife of perjury. Additionally, on

07.10.2023, the Appellant-wife filed an application seeking

transfer of ownership of a Mahindra XUV500 (Reg. No.

Page 6 of 12

UP16BA2073), asserting she contributed Rs.10,65,000/- out

of the total cost of Rs.14,99,577/- and had exclusively

maintained and used the vehicle since 2017. The Respondent-

husband replied on 15.05.2024, asserting registered

ownership and citing a Delhi Transport Department circular

dated 29.12.2021 capping diesel vehicle lifespan at 10 years

in NCR to demand the vehicle's return.

10. On 12.07.2024, the Additional Principal Judge disposed of all

three pending applications, finding that the husband is liable

to pay the enhanced school fee of the children. With effect from

April 2024 till the disposal of the divorce petition, the

maintenance of the children was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- per

month per child. The court declined to adjudicate the dispute

of the purchase and ownership of the car in the proceedings

for maintenance.

11. The Appellant-wife challenged the Family Court’s order dated

12.07.2024 before the Delhi High Court in MAT.APP.(F.C.)

299/2024 on 22.08.2024. On 09.09.2024, the High Court

issued notice and summoned the Trial Court record while

maintaining interim payments as decided by the order dated

12.07.2024. It is important to note that the Appellant-wife

Page 7 of 12

was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer on 16th August

2024. During the pendency of the appeal, on 10.12.2024, the

Delhi High Court took note of the Appellant-wife’s medical

diagnosis of aggressive breast cancer and directed the

Respondent-husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month towards

the Appellant-wife with effect from 01.12.2024.

12. On 27.02.2025, the High Court noted the Respondent-

husband’s admission of non-compliance with the interim

maintenance payable to the Appellant. Rejecting the defence

that the Appellant had not produced official medical

verification of her carcinoma, the High Court issued a suo motu

contempt notice against the Respondent-husband. The

Respondent-husband challenged the interim medical direction

before this Court in SLP(C) No. 8839/2025. Following an

unsuccessful mediation attempt, this Court dismissed the

Respondent-husband's SLP on 06.05.2025.

13. Despite the dismissal of his SLP, the Respondent-husband

failed to clear the arrears, leading the Delhi High Court to

observe on 16.07.2025 that his conduct amounted to

aggravated contempt, directing his personal presence. On

12.08.2025, after three successive pass-overs due to the non-

Page 8 of 12

appearance of the Respondent-husband and his counsel, the

High Court deemed his conduct lackadaisical and requested

the Director General and Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad

City, to secure the Respondent-husband's physical presence

on 14.08.2025. On 14.08.2025, the Respondent-husband filed

an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology for his absence

and disputing the Appellant’s need for personal maintenance.

IMPUGNED ORDERS

14. On 14.08.2025, the High Court disposing of MAT.APP.(F.C.)

299/2024 and CONT.CAS(C) 634/2025 vide final order and

judgment, holding that the amount awarded by the Family

Court was not sufficient, that the children are entitled to the

same facilities enjoyed by their parents, and enhanced the

maintenance to Rs. 1,25,000/- per month from the month of

April 2024. The Respondent-husband also undertook to

execute the necessary documents to transfer the ownership

of the car in favour of the Appellant-wife.

15. On 26.08.2025, the Appellant filed a Clarification Application

(CM Appl. 55169/2025) seeking the following clarifications:

Page 9 of 12

a. That the Respondent-husband be directed to clear the

arrears of interim maintenance accrued from April 2024

till date, within a time-bound period;

b. Reaffirm that the Respondent-husband's net disposable

monthly income has been assessed by the Family Court at

Rs. 4,50,000/-, and further, to record that the deductions

of Rs. 1,64,856/-, as noted in the Order dated 14.08.2025,

comprise voluntary deductions in addition to statutory

deductions;

c. That it be clarified that the contempt proceedings were in

fact initiated on account of the Respondent-husband's

failure to comply with the earlier Order dated 10.12.2024

of the Delhi High Court, and not merely for non-

appearance; and further, that the Respondent-husband be

directed to clear the arrears from March 2025 to August

2025 in terms of the said Order dated 10.12.2024.

16. By the Impugned Clarification Order dated 02.09.2025, the

High Court directed the Respondent-husband to pay all

arrears within six months while continuing monthly payments

of Rs. 1,25,000/- without any break.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

17. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that there is

undisputed evidence that the combined monthly expenses of

the children alone amount to Rs. 1,66,847/- per month apart

from the household obligations borne by the Appellant-wife.

Page 10 of 12

Further, they submit that the deductions as shown by the

Respondent-husband include voluntary contributions such as

ESPPs which cannot be treated as compulsory deductions to

reduce monthly income for the purposes of maintenance. In

addition, it was submitted that the Appellant-wife’s

deteriorating health due to aggressive breast cancer directly

impacted her ability to cover the shortfall in the minor

children’s expenses.

RESULT

18. Having considered the submissions and the material placed

on record, we are of the view that the

quantum of maintenance fixed by the High Court requires

reconsideration.

19. In paragraph 4 of the High Court’s final order, the salary of the

husband is shown as below:

“4. On the other hand, the Respondent who has appeared

in-person states that apart from his salary, which according

to him is close to Rs.4,00,000/- per month, he is also getting

a bonus on an average @ Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. Thus,

his monthly income is estimated to be Rs.4,50,000/-

(approx.). Out of this monthly income, Rs.1,64,856/- is

required to be deducted towards compulsory deductions,

including income tax, provident fund, professional tax, etc.

He is left with Rs.2,80,000/- (approx.) every month.”

Page 11 of 12

20. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant that the

deductions are voluntary in nature. We find that deductions of

Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately benefits that would

be passed on to the Respondent-husband. Unlike Income Tax

payment or professional taxes which are mandatory taxes, PFs

and ESPPs are not permanent charges but rather will accrue

into the account of the Respondent-husband which can be

withdrawn by the depositor in the future.

21. We are also mindful of the expenses for the cancer treatment

of the Appellant-wife who is looking after both children who

reside with her.

22. Per interim order dated 10.12.2024, the Delhi High Court had

already directed interim maintenance towards the Appellant

for Rs. 20,000/- per month. We note that the interim

maintenance is not mentioned in the final order dated

14.08.2025. We find it fit to enhance the maintenance to Rs.

30,000/- per month, particularly keeping in mind the medical

expenses.

23. We accordingly enhance monthly maintenance for both

children to a total of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- per child)

with effective from 1st January 2025. This will not preclude the

Page 12 of 12

Appellant from seeking enhancement as and when there are

change in circumstances.

24. In view of the undertaking given by the Respondent-Husband

in paragraph 7 of the High Court order, no further direction is

required as he has to abide by it. The Respondent-husband is

directed to do the needful as directed above within a period of

3 months from the date of this order.

25. With above observations, the Civil Appeals are disposed of

accordingly. All IAs with these appeals, if any, shall be

disposed of.

.................................J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

…………………….................................J.

(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 10, 2026.