Aakash Sharma vs Bharti Sharma on 21 November, 2025

[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Aakash Sharma vs Bharti Sharma on 21 November, 2025

1. This petition under Sections 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 (corresponding to Sections 438 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232) is directed against judgment dated 18th September, 2020, passed by the Principal Judge (East), Family Courts, Karkardooma, Delhi in MT 582/18 titled Ms. Bharti Sharma v. Mr. Aakash Sharma. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court allowed the maintenance petition filed by the Respondent under Section 125 CrPC and inter alia directed the Petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance amount of INR 7,500/- to the Respondent.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22nd February, 2016, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The parties have no children from their marriage. On account of matrimonial discord and temperamental 1 "Cr.P.C."

"BNSS"

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 1 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 differences, they have been residing separately and have engaged in multiple proceedings against each other. The present challenge relates to the impugned order arising out of a petition under 125 CrPC, wherein the question of maintenance has been decided in the following terms:

"ISSUE NO.1

14. Let us peruse the provisions and principles of law in order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties. Section 125 Cr.P.C provides as under:

(1) If any person having Sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain:

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) ...............court..... may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such court thinks fit, and pay the same to such person as the... Court... may direct from time to time.

15. The term 'maintenance' is not defined in the statute but the entitlement of claiming maintenance is based on the assumption that the claimant does not have sufficient means to support herself. Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice extended to protect woman and children with object to prevent vagrancy and destitution and provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It is a part and parcel of basic human rights. The maintenance is not bare sustenance but has to be sufficient enable the wife to meet her essential needs.

16. The Hon'ble supreme court has considered and discussed the objects of the section 125 Cr.P.C. in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 83 it was observed that these Provisions are intended to fulfill a social purpose and their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, it was held that Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves.

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 2 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20

17. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and the object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligations, which he owes to the society in respect of his wife, children and parents. The provision seeks to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left in destitution and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. It the wife refuses to live with her husband, the Court is required to enquire into the grounds of her refusal. An order of maintenance can still be passed in her favour in spite of the offer of the husband to maintain, on her refusing to live with him, if she has just grounds for refusing to live with him order of maintenance must be issued keeping in view the principal, of equity justice and good conscience and the humane considerations dominate the scene.

18. PWI Ms. Bharti Sharma in her affidavit reiterated the averments made in the plaint and got exhibited the petition as Ex. PWI/1, marriage card as Ex.PW1/2 marriage photographs as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) photograph of respondent shop as Ex.PW1/5 and further copy of bills and list of articles as Mark A (colly), copy of PCR form as Mark B and Complaint dated 15.11.2016 as Mark C.

19. Petitioner in her affidavit of income, assets and expenditure stated the date of her marriage with the respondent as 02.02.2016, date of separation as 21.10.2016. She stated her educational qualification as M.A. Pass and her occupation as Housewife. She stated here monthly expenditure as Rs.15,000/. She has also filed one D.V. Act petition against the respondent. She has bank account No. 1509000109162837 with Punjab National Bank, Maharani Bagh, Delhi. According to petitioner, the respondent is graduate and owning mobile shop and earning Rs.40,000/-to Rs.50.000/- per month. The petitioner has one Nokia mobile phone of Rs.1200/- and in her bank account she has Rs.1500/.

20. The respondent in his affidavit of income, assets and expenditure stated saine date of marriage as 02.02.2016 and date of separation as August, 2016. He stated his educational qualification as 12th pass and doing private job and his salary is Rs. 13,000/- per month. He stated that petitioner is MA. but does not know her working. He stated his expenditure as Rs.13,000/- per month.

21. The petitioner deposed that respondent is running a shop and photograph Ex. Pw1/5 filed on record. There is no document filed as to who is the owner of the shop in the photograph the shutter of the shop is closed and locked. The respondent has not dispute of giving of Hyundai Eon car in the marriage. The respondent has not filed any document that petitioner is working. The copy filed by respondent with respect to working of petitioner at Ajay Book Distributor, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi is not proved by him. The respondent has also not stated where he is doing private job and no salary slip of Rs.13,000/- per month as alleged by the respondent, filed and proved on record by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention that CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 3 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 petitioner taken the stand that respondent is earing Rs.40 thousand to Rs.50 thousand per month. However, she has not proved any documentary proof of his income. In addition to it, the petitioner also not proved any documentary proof of running of two mobile shops from the residence of the respondent. Photographs are not sufficient to establish that the shop which is closed belongs and run by respondent. The petitioner to the tune of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month.

22. In case of Kusum Sharma vs. Mahender Kumar Sharma 217 (2015) DLT 709, our own High Court has evolved the legal procedure of filing the detailed affidavit which has been modified later on in the year 2017. While discussing in the above said judgement, earlier case of Radhika Vs. Vineet Rangta, 110 (2004) (DLT)111, this court observed that parties rarely disclose their true income and therefore, the court have to resort to the status and life style of the parties for fixing the maintenance. This court held as under:-

"Cases where the parties disclose their actual income are extremely rare. Experience, therefore, dictates that where a decision has to be taken pertaining to the claim for maintenance, and the quantum to be granted, the safer and surer method to be employed for coming to a realistic conclusion is to look at the status of the parties, since whilst incomes can be concealed, the status is palpably evident to all concerned. If any opulent life style is enjoyed by warring spouses he should not be heard to complaint or plead that he has only a meagre income. If this approach had been followed, it would have been evidence that the warring spouses enjoy a affluent lifestyle. It has already been noted that the learned Trial Court has not discussed the husband's income. While granting maintenance it is incumbent on the court to make such monetary arrangements as would be conducive to the spouses continuing a lifestyle which they were accustomed before the matrimonial discord."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered and discussed the objects of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi & Anr, AIR 1975 SC 83 it was observed that these provisions are intended to fulfill a social purpose and their object is to compel a man to performs the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2SCC 316, it was held that section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution it provides a speedy renedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental right and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves.

24. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District judge Dehradun and other AIR 1997 CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 4 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

"Court has to consider the status of the parties their respective needs. capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fiked for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate".

25. In Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde 140 (2007) DIT 16-1 (2007) DMC 815, our own Hon'ble. High Court observed:-

"While considering a claim for interim maintenance, the court has to keep in mind the status of the parties, reasonable wants of the applicant, the income and property of the applicant. Conversely, requirement of the non-applicant, the income and property of the non- applicant and additionally the other family members to be maintained by the non-applicant have to be taken into all. Whilst it is important to insure that the maintenance awarded to the applicant is sufficient to enable the applicant to live in somewhat the same degree of comfort as in the matrimonial home, but it should not be so exorbitant that the non-applicant is unable to pay."

26. In matrimonial matter there is a general tendency of not disclosing of true employment and income by the parties. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstance as discussed above and considering the affidavit of income assets and expenditure of the parties as well as evidence led by petitioner I grant maintenance @ Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition. The respondent shall start paying the maintenance from 1.10.2020. The arrears of maintenance shall be paid through bank draft/directly in the account of the petitioner at the same rate from the date of filing of petition. The arrears shall be cleared within one years in equal monthly installments. The respondent shall also pay litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to the petitioner, if not paid earlier as directed vide order dated 07.01.2019 while deciding the interim maintenance already granted by any other court shall also be adjusted.

27. File be consigned to Record room."

3. Ms. Meera Kaura Patel, Counsel for the Petitioner, assails the impugned order on the following grounds:

3.1. The impugned order is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and has been CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 5 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles governing grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court fixed maintenance at INR 7,500/- in a mechanical manner, without undertaking any proper assessment of the Petitioner's earning capacity, financial obligations, or overall means, notwithstanding the material placed before it through income affidavits and evidence.

3.2. The Petitioner is only 12th-pass and earns a meagre income of INR 13,000/- per month, as disclosed in his income affidavit. Award of INR 7,500/-, constituting almost half of his earnings, is excessive and contrary to the settled principle that maintenance cannot be fixed at a level which effectively deprives the husband of a reasonable means of subsistence. Placing reliance on the principles culled out from Supreme Court precedents, it is argued that, even on a liberal view, the maintainable quantum could not have exceeded approximately INR 4,333/- per month. The Family Court failed to balance the Respondent's needs with the Petitioner's limited earning capacity and ignored his obligation to support his aged parents.

3.3. The Respondent is well-qualified and fully capable of earning a livelihood. Family Court erred in holding that there was no material to show that the Respondent was employed. The Respondent suppressed her income and concealed relevant facts. After securing documents disclosing her income, Petitioner moved an application under Section 127 CrPC seeking modification of the maintenance order. However, in view of the pendency of the present petition, that application has not been decided, thereby causing prejudice to him.

3.4. The direction to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 petition, along with litigation costs of INR 11,000/-, and the stipulation that arrears be cleared within one year in equal monthly instalments, is also challenged as harsh and unrealistic. If the Petitioner is required to pay 50% of his monthly income as maintenance, he cannot reasonably be expected to clear arrears accumulated over several years within such a short time. 3.5. The Respondent left the matrimonial home of her own accord, without any sufficient cause, and the allegations levelled by her are vague, unsubstantiated, and intended merely to exert pressure and extract money. The statutory preconditions under Section 125 CrPC are not satisfied, inasmuch as the Respondent has not established that the Petitioner, despite having sufficient means, refused or neglected to maintain her, or that she is genuinely unable to maintain herself. On this basis, the very entitlement to maintenance is questionable.

Analysis

4. Having examined the impugned order, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusions reached by the Family Court. The Family Court considered the income affidavits of both parties and the oral evidence, and expressly noted that the Petitioner, while claiming to earn only INR 13,000/- per month, produced no documentary proof of such employment or salary. No appointment letter, pay slip, bank statement reflecting salary credits, or even particulars of the alleged employer were adduced. In a situation where the earning spouse alone is in a position to disclose his true income, and chooses not to do so, the Court cannot be expected to treat a bare, self-serving assertion as conclusive. It is now well settled, as also held in Rajnesh v.

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 7 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 Neha3 and Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde4, that in maintenance proceedings, the Court is entitled, and often compelled, to arrive at a reasonable estimate of income and earning capacity by looking at surrounding indicators such as the spouse's education, skills, past occupation, lifestyle and standard of living, especially where direct proof is either withheld or unreliable. Viewed in that light, the Family Court's approach in proceeding on estimation rather than accepting the figure of INR 13,000/- at face value cannot be faulted.

5. The contention that the Respondent is well-qualified and therefore disentitled to maintenance also does not bear scrutiny. The Respondent categorically stated that she was not employed and was dependent for her sustenance. The Petitioner, who asserts otherwise, did not prove any credible material to show gainful employment or regular earnings on her part. The single document sought to be relied upon, suggesting that she worked for a book distributor, was neither proved through any witness nor tested in cross- examination. A spouse can be educated and theoretically employable, yet unemployed in fact. In Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna5 the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between the capacity to earn and the fact of earning, holding that it is the latter which is decisive for determining whether maintenance should be awarded. Thus, the law draws a clear distinction between the capacity to earn and actual earnings. On the material on record, the Family Court rightly proceeded on the footing that the Respondent was unable to maintain herself and therefore entitled to invoke Section 125 CrPC.

6. The challenge to the direction granting maintenance from the date of 3 (2021) 2 SCC 324.

2007 SCC OnLine Del 622.

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 8 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 the petition, and to the timeline for clearing arrears, is similarly unpersuasive. Section 125(2) CrPC vests a clear discretion in the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of the petition or from the date of the order. The discretion vested with the Family Court is within the statutory framework and cannot be described as legally untenable. The Court also granted one year's time to clear arrears in instalments. If the Petitioner considered even that period unworkable in the light of his actual finances, the appropriate course was to place cogent material on record and seek suitable modification before the same Court. In the absence of any substantiated disclosure of income, a general plea of hardship cannot by itself render the order arbitrary.

7. The argument that the Respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, and is therefore hit by Section 125(4) CrPC, stands answered by the findings of the Family Court. The Court after appreciating the evidence, has concluded that the Respondent had justifiable cause to live separately. The entitlement under Section 125 CrPC depends on neglect or refusal to maintain a spouse who is unable to maintain herself, and not on a rigid or mechanical application of desertion, divorced from the factual matrix. There is nothing on record to show that the Family Court misdirected itself on the legal test under Section 125(4) or ignored any material which would have compelled a contrary view.

8. The plea that the Family Court failed to consider the Petitioner's obligation to maintain his aged parents also does not merit acceptance. The Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai6 has clarified that maintenance 5 (2018) 12 SCC 199.

(2008) 2 SCC 316.

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 9 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 must be reasonable and realistic; it should neither be oppressive to the payer, nor so insignificant as to reduce dependents to a state of destitution.7 Thus, the law requires the Court to strike a balance between the reasonable needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband. That balance, however, must rest on some tangible proof of income and liabilities. In the present case, the Petitioner did not substantiate his claimed income or his alleged financial obligations, beyond a bald reference to the responsibility towards his parents. In those circumstances, the figure of INR 7,500/- per month fixed by the Family Court, against the backdrop of the parties' status and the nature of material on record, cannot be regarded as excessive, arbitrary, or so onerous as to shock the conscience of this Court.

9. The Court must also emphasise the limited scope of interference at the stage of revision. Under Section 438 BNSS (corresponding to Section 397 CrPC), interference lies only for jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or manifest miscarriage of justice, and not to substitute an alternative view on quantum if the Family Court's view is reasonably open on the record.8 The impugned order applies the correct tests, marshals the material, and fashions relief proportionate to need and capacity.

10. For the foregoing reasons, no ground is made out for interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is, however, clarified that if the Petitioner is able to place on record cogent material to show that the Respondent is now gainfully employed or has an independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself, it shall be open to him to approach the Family Court by way of an application under Section 127 CrPC. Any such 7 Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705; Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022) 4 SCC 443.

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 10 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20 application, if filed, shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, unfettered by the dismissal of the present petition.

11. Subject to the above clarification, the petition is dismissed along with all pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 21, 2025 nk 8 State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452.

CRL.REV.P. 609/2022 Page 11 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

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 27/11/2025 at 20:50:20

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders