Abhinav Kumar vs Swati And Anr on 25 August, 2025

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Abhinav Kumar vs Swati And Anr on 25 August, 2025

1. The present petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 20231 (formerly Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) assails the judgement dated 25th January, 2025, passed by Family Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT No. 673/2022. By the impugned judgment, the Petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of INR 20,000/- to the Respondents from the date of filing of the petition till the date of the impugned judgment, and INR 24,000/- per month (INR 14,000/- to Respondent No. 1 and INR 10,000/- to Respondent No. 2) from the date of the judgment onwards. The Family Court has further directed that Respondent No. 1 shall continue to receive maintenance for as long as the marital relationship between her and the Petitioner subsists, 1 "BNSS"

"Cr.P.C."

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 1 of 7

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 05/09/2025 at 22:46:18 while Respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to maintenance until he attains majority or commences gainful employment, whichever event occurs earlier.

2. The Petitioner is employed as a Senior Manager (Production) with Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Limited. His marriage with Respondent No. 1 was solemnised on 29th April, 2018. The parties have a son from this marriage (Respondent No. 2), who is presently aged 6 years and 4 months and is in custody the of Respondent No. 1.

3. Owing to matrimonial discord and temperamental differences, Respondent No. 1 left the company of the Petitioner on 10 th September, 2022, and has since been residing with her parents. She has alleged cruelty and harassment at the hands of the Petitioner and his three sisters, including unlawful demands of dowry. She has further alleged being threatened with her life. Respondent No.1 further asserts that she does not have any independent source of income to maintain herself and the child.

4. Counsel for the Petitioner clarifies, at the outset, that neither the income assessment of approximately INR 60,000 per month nor the award in favour of Respondent No. 2 (the minor child) is under challenge. The petition is confined to the grant of maintenance to Respondent No. 1. He contends that Respondent No. 1, being educated and capable of gainful employment, cannot seek to indefinitely saddle the Petitioner with a maintenance liability, especially when he himself is a salaried employee already burdened with a subsisting housing loan and substantial monthly EMI deductions. He also points out that documentary proof of these deductions was placed before the Family Court but not meaningfully considered. He further alleges that Respondent No. 1 has been pressuring him for money, even compelling the sale of ancestral property, and has CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 2 of 7 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 05/09/2025 at 22:46:18 threatened to embroil him in criminal litigation. The present proceedings, he argues have been instituted with the sole object of harassment, rather than a genuine plea of need. Most significantly, he invokes Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. to contend that Respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, which, disentitle her to maintenance.

5. The Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the impugned order. The Family Court, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence placed before it, recorded detailed reasons for awarding maintenance in favour of the Respondents. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

"19. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and all the allegations of cruelty and harassment are not supposed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal case or in a civil divorce case. No doubt, PW1 has admitted that everything was going on smoothly between them at Faridabad and the respondent was looking her after properly, but she has also proved that the respondent used to pick quarrels on her visits to her parental home. She has lodged a police complaint and has also filed two cases against him including a case under DV Act. It is further proved that the respondent used to pick quarrels with her, due to she left her matrimonial home and the respondent and his family members did not allow her to stay. She has further deposed that sisters of the respondent used to raise demands of money and jewellery. Actually, sisters of the respondent were occasional visitors to the matrimonial home of the petitioner but merely on the basis of this fact, it cannot be presumed that occasional visitor cannot raise dowry demand and it may be raised even without any visit to victim. PW1 has stood by her case that the petitioner no.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment and she has sufficient reason to stay separately. Police compliant Ex. PW1/4 has duly corroborated that the petitioner no.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent and his family members, due to the petitioners are entitled for maintenance.

20. Petitioners have alleged that the petitioner no. is not working, though highly qualified. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that the petitioner no.1 is highly qualified and has been earning, due to she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is further argued that she is taking home tuitions and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, which is sufficient to maintain both the petitioners. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioners has CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 3 of 7 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 05/09/2025 at 22:46:18 opposed this submission and has submitted that the petitioner no.1 has already disclosed that she is not working but maintaining her son, whereas the respondent has not proved any document that she has been working, due (sic) to the petitioner no. l is entitled for maintenance. It is further argued that the respondent has been working as Senior Engineer (Production) with Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd., Faridabad and getting a regular salary of more than Rs. 60,000/- per month besides agricultural income and has sufficient sources to pay maintenance to the petitioners and may be directed to pay maintenance to the petitioners.

21. Admittedly, the petitioner no. 1 has claimed herself to be a housewife, whereas the respondent has alleged that she has been earning by home tuitions, however the respondent has not proved any document to this effect. In the absence of any document, it cannot be said that the petitioner no. 1 has been working. On the other hand, the respondent has been earning and drawing a regular salary and document Ex.PW1/5 has proved that he has been earning Rs. 60,650/- per month. Respondent has been maintaining a Baleno Car, which has been purchased recently soon before filing of this case. RW1 has admitted that he has agriculture land in his native village and earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. As such, earning of the respondent is considered according to his salary slip, as per which, the respondent has certain deductions and his last drawn salary was Rs. 57,919/-, which might have increased after one year. Accordingly, income of the respondent is considered @ Rs. 58,000/- per month. However, this case was filed in the year 2022, due to earning of the respondent is considered on rounded off basis @ Rs. 55,000/- per month from date of filing of this petition upto date of judgment. From the date of judgment onwards, income of the respondent is considered @ Rs. 60,000/- per month to determine this maintenance.

22. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that the respondent was availed housing and other loans and has been paying EMIs, which are also supposed to be his financial liability. Respondent has filed loan account documents, as per which, he has availed housing loan in the year 2017 i.e. prior to filing of this petition, due to EMIs of such housing loan ought to be adjusted towards expenses of the respondent. However, documents placed on record by the respondent suggest that he has been availing top-up loans i.e. one after another, due to all loans may not be adjusted. Rather repeated loan amount suggests that he might have taken loans deliberately just to avoid payment of maintenance to the petitioners. Respondent has been paying two EMIs of loan amount Ye. Rs. 11,200/- and Rs. 10,115/-, whereas he has been seeking adjustment of EMIs of Rs. 30,341/- per month. In fact, EMIs of home loan of Rs. 11,200/- is liable to be adjusted and there shall be no adjustment of remaining EMIs, as the petitioners are not beneficiaries of such loan amount. After adjusting this EMI, monthly income of the respondent is considered @ Rs. 43,800/- (rounded of Rs. 44,000/-) on the date of filing of this petition upto the date of judgment and from the date of judgment onwards @ Rs. 48,800/- (rounded of Rs. 49,000/-) per month.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 4 of 7

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 05/09/2025 at 22:46:18

23. RW1 has admitted that the respondent has no other dependency except the petitioners, due to the petitioners are only dependents of the respondent.

24. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby award a monthly maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month to the petitioners from the date of filing of this petition upto the date of judgment, and Rs. 24,000/- per month (Rs. 14,000/- to petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- to petitioner no. 2) from the date of judgment till subsisting relationship of the husband and wife between the petitioner no.1 and respondent. Petitioner No.2 shall be entitled for maintenance till he attains age of majority or starts earning, whichever is earlier. Maintenance shall be payable on 10th of each succeeding calendar month.

25. However, ad-interim maintenance already paid in this petition or any other interim / regular maintenance in any other petition shall be subject to adjustment. With these observations, application for interim maintenance is disposed of."

6. The scope of controversy in the present petition is narrow. The income of the Petitioner, as assessed by the Family Court, is not in dispute; the challenge is confined to the direction to pay maintenance to Respondent No. 1. It is an admitted position that Respondent No. 1 is presently unemployed. The only ground urged is that she is educated and capable of earning, and therefore ought not to be granted maintenance. This argument, however, stands answered by the settled position of law. In Shailja v. Khobbanna,3 the Supreme Court made it clear that mere capacity or potential to earn cannot be equated with an actual source of income so as to disentitle a wife from maintenance. The Court emphasised that the relevant test is whether the wife has an independent and sufficient income to maintain herself with reasonable dignity. The possibility of employment or the possession of educational qualifications, by itself, does not absolve the husband of his statutory obligation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to provide 3 (2018) 12 SCC 199 CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 5 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

7. Respondent No. 1 has the custody of Respondent No. 2, who is a child of barely six years. At such a tender age, the primary responsibility of day- to-day care naturally falls upon the mother. While it is true that some women may successfully balance professional commitments with childcare, it is equally common that many mothers, particularly in the early years of a child's upbringing, are compelled to prioritise the welfare and development of the child over their own career aspirations. To expect Respondent No. 1, in such circumstances, to simultaneously shoulder the burden of childcare and earn a livelihood would not, in the opinion of this Court, be a reasonable or just expectation. Ultimately, the task before this Court is to assess the Petitioner's obligation to provide maintenance in terms of the statutory mandate and the principles enunciated by judicial precedent noted above.

8. It is also imperative to highlight that it is a fundamental duty of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife and children, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan4. In the said case, the Court underscored that a healthy, able-bodied husband has a legal obligation to provide maintenance to his wife. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that this obligation is amplified when the children are in the care of the wife. The Supreme Court in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg5, categorically made the following observations:

"The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds 4 (2015) 5 SCC 705.

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 6 of 7

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 05/09/2025 at 22:46:18 mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy."

[Emphasis Supplied]

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon consideration of the material on record, including the Petitioner's income and the financial liabilities projected by him, this Court finds no infirmity in the determination made by the Family Court. The impugned order is based on a detailed appraisal of the Petitioner's earnings, the limited adjustment allowed for genuine liabilities, and the absence of any credible material to establish that Respondent No. 1 has an independent source of income. The reasoning adopted by the Family Court is balanced and in consonance with the legal principles, and does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no merit in the present petition.

11. Dismissed, along with pending applications.

SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 25, 2025/d.negi CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 390/2025 Page 7 of 7 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 05/09/2025 at 22:46:18

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders