Alok Kumar Das vs Mamta

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: August 14, 2026
% Pronounced on: August 31, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC014407532018
+ CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018, CRL.M.A. 47930/2018, CRL.M.A.
48942/2018, CRL.M.A. 12327/2019, CRL.M.A. 41864/2019,
CRL.M.A. 21095/2024, CRL.M.A. 21383/2026

ALOK KUMAR DAS …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Nakul Nirwan,
Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocates
Versus

MAMTA …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta and Mr. Raghav
Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 397 read with Section
1
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1, 1973 the petitioner/ husband
2
seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 29.09.2018 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,
3
Delhi in Complaint Case No.1003/2014 entitled ‘ Smt. Mamta vs. Alok
Kumar Das ’ by virtue whereof the petitioner was directed to pay
maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition
before the learned Family Court till December 2011; @ Rs.10,000/- per

1
Hereinafter “ CrPC ”
2
Hereinafter “ impugned judgment ”
3
Hereinafter “ Family Court ”
CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018 Page 1 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

month from January 2012 to December 2013; @ Rs.10,000/- per month
henceforth; and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent/ wife.
2. Briefly put , the petitioner and the respondent got married on
20.05.2002 at Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs, which, though
consummated, there is no child born out of the wedlock. Since their
matrimonial relationship turned sour, in August 2002, the respondent left
the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home.
3. On 30.09.2003, the petitioner instituted Suit No.27/2003 seeking a
decree of declaration of being unmarried and restraining the respondent to
claim to be his wife. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent challenged the judgment in the
aforesaid suit by way of Civil Appeal No.299/2005, which was allowed
vide judgment dated 22.07.2006, and the decree in favour of the petitioner
was set aside.
5. The petitioner also challenged the aforesaid judgment by way of
RSA No.299/2006 before this Court. Since the same was dismissed vide
order dated 04.04.2011, the judgment dated 22.07.2006 was upheld.

6. In the meanwhile, the respondent sought maintenance vide an
application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court
in the year 2008, wherein the impugned judgment has been passed.
7. Hence, the present revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner primarily submitted that since the
respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, her claim of
matrimonial relationship, without any document establishing the same, is
untenable. In fact, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the
respondent had herself admitted her signatures on the Marriage Certificate
CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018 Page 2 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

and the Affidavit for Marriage Certificate ( Exhibit Ex. A ), which clearly
establishes that she was already married to one Praveen Rana on
06.04.2015 and was unmarried while marrying the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that since the findings contained
in the judgment dated 22.07.2006 in Civil Appeal No.299/2005 inter se the
parties were based on mere technicalities and not on merits, they cannot be
read against the petitioner in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that, even otherwise, the respondent
is a well-educated and professionally qualified woman, holding a bachelor
degree in Law and practising as an Advocate in Delhi. She is, thus, capable
of maintaining herself. As such, the proceedings initiated by her under
Section 125 of the CrPC are misconceived and have been instituted solely
with the intent to harass and cause undue hardship to the petitioner.
11. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is the sole
breadwinner of his family and a substantial part of his income is spent on
the treatment, regular check-ups, and medicines of his mother, who is
bedridden and suffering from several age-related ailments. Additionally,
the petitioner has the responsibility to take care of his present wife, Kumari
Meena, whom he married on 01.02.2008, as well as for his child’s
education.
12. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that since the impugned judgment is passed in a mechanical manner, the
same is liable to be set aside.
13. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent supporting the
impugned judgment submitted that the same is well-reasoned and has been
passed after taking due consideration of all the materials placed before the
CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018 Page 3 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

learned Family Court, and does not suffer from any illegality/ infirmity
requiring inference of this Court, much less in a revisional jurisdiction
wherein the scope of interference is limited and must be exercised
sparingly. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon Amit
4
Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. and Shakotla Mishra vs. State of
5
Govt. of NCT of Delhi .
14. On merits, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
petitioner’s claim that the respondent is not his lawfully wedded wife and is
therefore not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC is
unsustainable, as the question of their marriage stands settled by the
judgment dated 22.07.2006 in Civil Appeal No.299/2005. In fact, RSA
No.299/2006 thereagainst has also been dismissed. Even otherwise, the
same has already been dealt with by the learned Family Court in the
impugned judgment.
15. Thus, as per learned counsel for the respondent since the present
revision petition being wholly without merits, is liable to be dismissed.
16. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused
the materials placed on record and the judgments cited at Bar.
17. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor (supra) and
6
Pyla Mutyalamma vs. Pyla Suri Demudu , the scope of interference with
the findings contained in the impugned judgment in the present revision
petition like the present one is extremely limited as this Court is not to re-
assess and/ or re-appreciate the materials and/ or the evidence as was

4
(2012) 9 SCC 460
5
CRL.REV.P.180/2026
6
(2011) 12 SCC 189
CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018 Page 4 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

available on record before the learned Family Court and is only to interfere
if there are any material illegalities and/ or irregularities contained therein.
18. Keeping the above in mind, and based on the materials on record,
since the issue of marriage inter se the parties has long been settled by the
judgment dated 22.07.2006 passed in the earlier proceedings, against which
RSA No.299/2006 has also been dismissed, the same needs no further
deliberation. Today, the petitioner is bound by the outcome of the aforesaid
proceedings, as they are final and conclusive. The petitioner cannot seek to
escape the outcome thereof by, once again, de novo contending the very
same decided issues in another/ fresh proceeding at a later stage. In fact,
this Court finds that the learned Family Court has also dealt with the same
in the well-reasoned impugned judgment as well, which needs no
interference by this Court.
19. Thus, the respondent being legally wedded wife of the petitioner as
their marriage was solemnised on 20.05.2002, she comes within the ambit
of Section 125 of the CrPC, which is well-settled.
20. Moreover, since the materials on record show that the petitioner led
no evidence and thus failed to discharge his burden of proving his case, he
cannot be permitted to have another bite at the cherry, and that too in a
revision petition by trying to rake open the earlier settled issue of his
marriage with the respondent before.
21. In view of the parties being married before, and as held in Shamima
7 8
Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan , Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and Anju

7
(2015) 5 SCC 705
8
(2015) 6 SCC 353
CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018 Page 5 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50

9
Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg , as any husband, the petitioner owes a legal
debt to maintain any wife like the respondent. Therefore, that the petitioner
is the sole breadwinner of his family, who has to bear the responsibilities of
his ailing mother, (so-called) wife and son, can hardly come to his aid. The
petitioner has not been able to show any reason(s) for this Court to exercise
its revisional jurisdiction.
22. Lastly, this Court finds that since the findings arrived at by the
learned Family Court in the impugned judgment are a plausible
interpretation which are well-supported/ reasoned, there is no reason for
interference and/ or setting aside and/ or to touch the quantum of
maintenance(s) granted by the learned Family Court, in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
23. Accordingly, the present revision petition, along with pending
applications, is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/So/DA



9
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314
CRL.REV.P. 1019/2018 Page 6 of 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:31.08.2026
17:57:50