Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 08.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 12.01.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 16.01.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 300/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6917/2024
VIJAY SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
(through VC)
versus
SHIVANI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vipin Pillai, Advocate
along with respondent- wife in
person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner-husband
is seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.11.2023 [hereafter
„ impugned order ‟], passed by the learned Family Court-01, East
District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „ Family Court ‟] in
MT No. 266/2022, titled as ‘Shivani vs. Vijay Singh’ , under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „ Cr.P.C. ‟]
whereby the respondent-wife has been awarded interim maintenance
in the sum of ₹6,000/- per month.
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 1 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-wife and
the petitioner-husband were married on 04.05.2021 according to
Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said
wedlock. It is alleged by the respondent-wife that soon after the
marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner-husband and
his family members on account of insufficient dowry. It is further
alleged that prior to the marriage, the petitioner had represented to the
respondent‟s family that he was engaged in the business of dry fruits
under the name and style of “M/s Valhalla Nuts and Spices” and was
earning a substantial income therefrom. According to the respondent,
on 17.04.2022, she was forcibly turned out of her matrimonial home
after being physically assaulted by the petitioner and his family
members.
3. Aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner, the respondent-
wife filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in May, 2022. In
the said petition, the respondent averred that she is a housewife, does
not own any movable or immovable property, and has no
independent source of income. It was stated that she has studied only
up to the 10th standard and is entirely dependent upon her parental
family for her sustenance. It is further the case of the respondent that
the petitioner is a man of sufficient means. She claims that he is well
educated, holding qualifications of B.Ed and B.T.C., and is carrying
on the business of dry fruits, from which he is earning approximately
₹90,000/- per month. It is also averred that the petitioner has various
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 2 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
family properties and is leading a comfortable and luxurious life.
4. Initially, ad-interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month was
granted in favour of the respondent-wife. Thereafter, the learned
Family Court, after hearing both the parties and upon perusal of their
respective income affidavits, was pleased to pass the impugned order,
observing as under:
“7. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that none of the
party has filed any document to prove the income of opposite
party in support of their claim. Court is required to assess the
income assets, expenditure of the parties by taking a prima
facie view of the matter.
8. The bank statement filed by respondent reflect many credit
entries of different amounts upto Rs. 30,000/- but these credit
are not explained in any way on record. The credit entries
indicate some resources in the hands of respondent. On the
other hand the bank statement of petitioner- husband does not
reflect any substantial credit entry.
There is nothing to accept that petitioner has any source of
income to maintain herself. As per admission of respondent-
wife he is employed and getting salary but there is no evidence
to accept that he is running any dry fruit shop. Keeping in view
the entire facts and circumstance of the case, taking into
consideration the minimum wages as well as the fact that
respondent is an able bodied person and is required to provide
for the necessities of his family, his monthly income should be
atleast Rs,18,000/- per month. Accordingly. I take the income
of respondent @ 18,000/-per month.
9. Respondent has claimed the responsibility of his old aged
parents and claimed the expenses of Rs. 5,000/- per month on
dependents. Petitioner has disputed the claim of dependents by
respondent. Respondent has not placed on record any material
Leshly any expenses towards maintenance of his departments.
Therefore, his plea of departments is prima-faciely not
acceptable.
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 3 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
my opinion, prima-faciely, it has been established by petitioner
that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Petitioner
has also prima-faciely established that respondent has
neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means. In
my view, petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance and
respondent has legal and moral duty to make provision for
maintenance of petitioner being his wife.
11. To calculate the maintenance amount which petitioner is
entitled to seek from respondent, reliance is placed upon
Annurita Vohar v. Sandeep Vohra; 110 (2004) DLT 456
where Hon‟ble High Court has observed as under:
"In my view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the
Family Resource cake in two portions to the Husband since
has to incur extra expenses in the course of his making his
earning, and one share to each other members."
12. Applying the above mentioned guiding principal, generally
two shares of the income should go to the earning spouse and
the one share to the claimant spouse and other dependent i.c.
wife.
13. In view of the above discussion, maintenance of Rs.6,000/-
per month, is allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent from the date of filing of present petition till the
disposal of the present petition…”
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
husband argues that the learned Family Court has passed the
impugned order on the basis of presumptions and surmises, and that
the same does not correctly reflect the actual financial position of the
petitioner. It is argued that, as per the income affidavit on record, the
petitioner is employed with M/s JMD H.R. Management Pvt. Ltd.
and is earning a gross honorarium of ₹13,906/- per month, with an in-
hand income of about ₹10,000/- per month. It is submitted that no
other source of income has been shown to exist. It is further
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 4 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
contended that the maintenance ought to have been determined on the
basis of the minimum wages applicable in the State where the
petitioner-husband is presently working. The learned counsel further
submits that the statement of bank account filed by the respondent-
wife before this Court was not placed before the learned Family
Court, and therefore, the learned Family Court did not have the
benefit of considering the same. It is also argued that the petitioner-
husband has the responsibility of looking after his ailing father. The
learned counsel further contends that the learned Family Court has
failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife is gainfully employed at
a beauty parlour/stitching shop and is earning about ₹10,000/- per
month, which, according to him, reduces her dependency and ought
to have been taken into account while determining the amount of
maintenance. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order
be set aside.
6. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
wife submits that the petitioner-husband, despite having sufficient
means, has wilfully neglected and failed to discharge his marital
obligations. It is further argued that the petitioner has deliberately
suppressed material facts by not placing on record documents relating
to his family properties and bank accounts before the learned Family
Court, with the intent to mislead the Court. It is submitted that the
respondent-wife is unemployed, does not possess any substantial
educational qualifications, and is wholly financially dependent, yet
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 5 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
has been deprived of financial support even for her basic needs. It is
further contended that the petitioner-husband has no other legal or
financial liability except to maintain his wife. The learned counsel for
the respondent-wife also argues that the impugned order has been
passed after due appreciation of the material available on record and
does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or perversity.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision petition be
dismissed.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the respondent, and has perused the material
available on record.
8. In the present case, the respondent-wife has consistently stated
that she has no independent source of income and is entirely
dependent upon her aged parents for her sustenance. It is also
pertinent to note that the respondent has specifically stated in her
income affidavit that she has studied only up to the 10th standard and
does not possess any further educational qualifications. Although it
has been contended on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the
respondent-wife is educated and is pursuing M.A., it is well settled
that mere educational qualification or capacity to earn does not ipso
facto establish that a wife is actually earning. There is a clear
distinction between the ability to earn and actual earning [ Ref:
Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna: (2018) 12 SCC 199 ].
9. Even otherwise, no material has been placed on record by the
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 6 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
petitioner-husband to even prima facie show that the respondent-wife
is gainfully employed or earning any income. The learned Family
Court has rightly recorded that there is nothing on record to show that
the respondent-wife has any source of income sufficient to meet her
basic needs. This Bench, recently in Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood @
Sonu: CRL.REV.P. 763/2024 , has also observed that at the stage of
interim maintenance, the Court cannot presume the earning capacity
of the wife in the absence of any proof of actual income, and mere
allegations regarding her employability or educational qualifications
are not sufficient to deny maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C.
10. Insofar as the assessment of the income of the petitioner-
husband is concerned, the respondent-wife has stated that he earns
about ₹90,000/- per month from his dry-fruit business. However, as
rightly noted by the learned Family Court, no material has been
placed on record by the respondent-wife to substantiate the said
assertion at this stage. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has
contended that his take-home income is only about ₹10,000/- per
month and that he is employed as an Ayushman Mitra on a
salary/honorarium of approximately ₹13,900/- per month. This Court,
however, is of the opinion that the said assertion does not inspire
confidence in view of the bank account statements pertaining to the
petitioner-husband.
11. In this regard, the learned Family Court has observed that the
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 7 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
bank account statements filed by the petitioner-husband himself
reflect several credit entries of amounts running up to ₹30,000/-.
Though the petitioner-husband has argued that the said entries pertain
to a joint account with his uncle, no material has been placed on
record to show that the credited amounts were not for his benefit or
that he had no control over the said funds. Even otherwise, at the
stage of determining interim maintenance, the Court is only required
to take a prima facie view, and the final determination of income is a
matter of trial.
12. Further, the respondent-wife has now placed on record before
this Court, the bank account statement of the petitioner-husband
maintained with IDBI Bank, which reflects total transactions
amounting to ₹15,05,155/- during the period from 02.08.2022 to
02.08.2025. The said statement shows multiple credit entries,
including credits of substantial amounts. This Court is of the
considered opinion that the said bank account statement ought to
have been disclosed by the petitioner-husband himself before the
learned Family Court. Be that as it may, the respondent-wife would
be at liberty to place the same before the learned Family Court for
appropriate consideration.
13. One of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner-
husband is that the minimum wages ought to have been considered as
per the State where he is employed, i.e., Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. It is
correct that while assessing income on the basis of minimum wages,
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 8 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
the applicable notification of the concerned State is to be taken into
consideration. In the present case, it appears that the minimum wages
applicable to Delhi have been considered.
14. However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, the entries reflected in the bank account statements as
noted by the learned Family Court, and taking a prima facie view of
the bank account statement of the petitioner-husband maintained with
IDBI Bank placed before this Court by the respondent-wife, further
considering that the said statement has not been disputed as such by
the petitioner-husband, though it is contended that the same ought to
be first considered by the learned Family Court, this Court, without
delving deeper into the said aspect at this stage and taking only a
broad and prima facie view, finds no infirmity in the assessment of
the petitioner-husband‟s income at ₹18,000/- per month.
15. Accordingly, in view of the judgment of this Court in Annurita
Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192 , this Court also
finds no infirmity in the grant of interim maintenance in the sum of
₹6,000/- per month in favour of the respondent-wife.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit
in the present revision petition, and the same along with the pending
application is accordingly dismissed.
17. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove
are solely for the purpose of deciding present petition and shall not be
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 9 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17
construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
18. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 12, 2026/ GJ/RB
T.D.
CRL.REV.P.300/2024 Page 10 of 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:41:17