Rahul Gaurav Nagar vs Neeta @ Savita & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17.07.2026
Pronounced on: 27.07. 2026
Uploaded on: 27.07. 2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 16/2021
RAHUL GAURAV NAGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.P. Mavi, Adv. with Ms.Kavita
Kumari, Advs.
versus
NEETA @ SAVITA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, Adv. ( through
VC )
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
J U D G M E N T
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present Revision Petition arises out of the impugned Order dated
13.02.2020 passed by the Learned Principal Judge (East), Family Courts,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT No. 158/18 (2015) , whereby the petitioner
was directed to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and
₹10,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 towards maintenance, to be remitted
through bank draft or by direct credit into their bank accounts between the 1st
and 10th day of each calendar month . The Learned Family Court further
directed that the respondents would be entitled to an annual enhancement of
5% in the maintenance amount payable in future.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was
solemnized on 05.12.2012, and a child, respondent No. 2, was born out of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 1 of 10

wedlock on 19.09.2013. Matrimonial disputes subsequently arose between the
parties.
4. Respondent No. 1 alleges that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry
demands by the petitioner and his family members and was ultimately forced
to leave the matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint before the CAW Cell
on 17.11.2014 and has been residing at her parental home since then. The
petitioner denies the allegations and contends that the parties have been living
separately since November, 2013. He further disputes the allegations
regarding his income and assets and asserts that respondent No. 1 has
suppressed material facts regarding the maintenance awarded to her and her
independent source of income.
5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was referred to
mediation vide order dated 20.08.2025; however, no settlement could be
arrived at.
6. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, the affidavits of income, the oral
and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and the material available
on record, the learned Principal Judge (East), Family Courts, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, vide the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020, held that the
petitioner had sufficient earning capacity to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and
2. Accordingly, the learned Family Court directed the petitioner to pay
maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and ₹10,000/- per
month to respondent No. 2, together with an annual enhancement of 5%. The
relevant extracts of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge
Dehradun and others , AIR 1997 SC 3397 , Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 2 of 10

"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 fixed 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."
39. The marriage of petitioner and respondent was
solemnized on 05.12.2012 and minor child Daksh
was born on 09.09.2013 . The respondent husband
was granted Student Visa from 22.01.2013 to
21.02.2014 for BA Hospitality Management which
started from 14.01.2013 to 21.12.2013 . According
to respondent, his father had taken an educational
loan for this course at Edinburgh, Scotland .
However, no document has been proved on record.
Further, no document has been filed on record to
establish that his father has been paying the
educational loan. It is pertinent to mention here that
the respondent admits that at the time of marriage
the petitioner's family gifted a Mahindra SUV
bearing No. UP16-AM-0638 . The respondent used
the said car till it was returned to the petitioner. The
respondent very conveniently denied about two
houses bearing Nos. E-228 & E-229, Sector-15,
Noida . However, he admitted that his father is the
owner of these two houses. Although the respondent
denied that his family derives any rental income
from these houses, as well as from the property
situated at village Mamura, Noida , commercial
plot at Noida and income from truck, it is
established that the respondent and his family have
a very sound financial status. His father possesses
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 3 of 10

several immovable properties and the respondent
also studied in Scotland after marriage. It is
pertinent to mention that the petitioner is spending
Rs.12,000/- per month on the education of the child.
40. The respondent has now taken the plea that he
is earning Rs.11,000/- per month even after
completing the course of Hospitality Management
from Edinburgh, Scotland , and that he is merely an
average employee whose salary has not increased
since employment. The said plea is unbelievable and
without any basis. It appears that, in order to escape
the liability of maintenance, the respondent has
projected his income as Rs.11,000/- per month . In
my considered opinion, the respondent has a moral
and legal duty to maintain his wife and minor child
in accordance with the family's financial status as
perceived at the time of marriage. It cannot be ruled
out that when the respondent was gifted a Mahindra
SUV at the time of marriage keeping in view his
financial status, the petitioner is equally entitled to
be maintained according to the same financial
status. Accordingly, both the issues are decided in
favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
Relief
41. On the basis of the above observations and
discussion, I direct that the respondent shall pay
Rs.15,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and
Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 as monthly
maintenance. The respondent shall start paying the
maintenance from January 2020 . The monthly
maintenance and arrears of maintenance shall be
paid through bank draft/directly into the account of
the petitioner. The monthly maintenance shall be
transferred directly into the petitioner's account
between the 1st and 10th day of every month . The
petitioner shall further be entitled to an annual
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 4 of 10

increase of 5% in the maintenance amount in
future.”
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 13.02.2020, the petitioner
has preferred the present Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as ‘ Cr.PC’ )
primarily contending that the learned Family Court erred in assessing his
income and earning capacity, wrongly awarded excessive maintenance, and
further acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing an automatic annual
enhancement of 5% in the maintenance amount.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
graduate in Hospitality Management and is presently working as a cook in
India. He contended that respondent No. 1 has taken contradictory stands
regarding the petitioner's alleged ownership of various properties. It was
submitted that while, in her affidavit before the learned Trial Court,
respondent No. 1 initially stated that she had no knowledge of the petitioner's
properties, she subsequently claimed ignorance thereof and, thereafter, filed a
detailed list alleging that the petitioner owned several immovable properties.
9. Learned counsel further contended that the evidence adduced before
the learned Trial Court, particularly the petitioner's cross-examination, clearly
establishes that the properties relied upon by respondent No. 1 belong to the
petitioner's father and not to the petitioner. It was submitted that the said
properties are small residential units accommodating the entire family and do
not generate any rental income for the petitioner. The petitioner, it was urged,
does not own any immovable property and is himself residing in a rented
accommodation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 5 of 10

10. It was further submitted that the minor child was admitted to school
under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, which itself
demonstrates the petitioner's limited financial means. Counsel argued that the
petitioner's father has five children and that there is no documentary evidence
on record to establish that any of the properties alleged by respondent No. 1
are owned by the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel also assailed the impugned order on the ground that,
while the learned Trial Court had awarded maintenance of ₹6,000/- per
month, the learned Principal Judge, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
not only enhanced the maintenance amount but also directed a future annual
increase of 5%. It was contended that such a direction is impermissible under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. and could only be passed in proceedings under Section
127 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the grant of an automatic future
enhancement, without any determination of the petitioner's future income or
financial capacity, is contrary to the legislative scheme and is liable to result
in a grave miscarriage of justice.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
impugned order suffers from no illegality, perversity or material irregularity
warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was
contended that the order is well reasoned, based on the pleadings and evidence
on record, and therefore deserves to be upheld.
13. Learned counsel submitted that an execution petition for recovery of
maintenance arrears amounting to approximately ₹7,00,000/- for the years
2023–24 and 2024–25 is presently pending before the learned Trial Court. It
was contended that the petitioner has selectively relied upon the income
affidavit while ignoring the evidence affidavit filed before the learned Trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 6 of 10

Court on 16.08.2025. Reliance was placed on paragraphs 23, 33 and 39 of the
impugned order to submit that the evidence led by respondent No.1 remained
substantially unrebutted and that the petitioner had failed to effectively
challenge the respondent's case.
14. It was further submitted that respondent No.1 had led evidence to
establish the financial status of the petitioner's family, including expenditure
incurred by her parents at the time of marriage, the gifts made to the petitioner,
the expenses borne towards the petitioner's education abroad, medical
expenses, and the educational needs of the minor child. According to the
respondents, despite such evidence, the petitioner failed to rebut the same and
has falsely projected his monthly income to be merely ₹11,000/-.
15. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner cannot dispute the
direction regarding periodical enhancement of maintenance. It was submitted
that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, ought to have
invoked the provisions of Section 127 Cr.P.C. for modification of the
maintenance order. It was contended that annual increments in income and
expenditure are a matter of common experience and, therefore, the direction
providing for enhancement in maintenance cannot be faulted.
16. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed reliance
upon Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, 2020 SCC OnLine Del
931 , Radhika v. Vineet Rungta, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 74 , Jasbir Kaur
Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7. , and Rakhi Sadhukhan
v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259 , to contend that while
determining maintenance, the Court is required to consider the status and
lifestyle of the parties, and that reasonable periodic enhancement of
maintenance is legally permissible.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 7 of 10

17. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court
only to delay compliance with the impugned order, particularly when
execution proceedings are pending and no stay has been granted. It was
further contended that the petitioner's claim of earning only ₹11,000/- per
month is wholly unbelievable, especially in view of his educational
qualifications and studies undertaken at Edinburgh, Scotland.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
18. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the respondents and have gone through the material on record.
19. At the outset, it may be noted that the present proceedings arise out of
a revision petition, wherein the scope of interference is well settled and
extremely limited. The Supreme Court, in Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri
Demudu , (2011) 12 SCC 189 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , (2012)
9 SCC 460 , has held that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate or re-assess the
evidence on record. Interference is warranted only where the impugned order
suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material
irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
20. Examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds no
infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. The learned
Family Court has considered the pleadings, the affidavits of income and assets
filed by both parties, as well as the oral and documentary evidence brought
on record. Significantly, the evidence of respondent No.1/wife remained
substantially unrebutted, as despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner
failed to cross-examine her. Consequently, her testimony regarding her
financial dependence, the educational expenses of the minor child and the
financial status of the petitioner remained unchallenged. The learned Family
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 8 of 10

Court was therefore justified in drawing appropriate inferences from the
unrebutted evidence.
21. The learned Family Court has also undertaken a detailed examination
of the petitioner's financial capacity. Though the petitioner claimed that he
was earning only ₹11,000/- per month as a Marketing Executive, the learned
Family Court found such plea to be wholly unconvincing. The petitioner
admittedly possesses a degree in Hospitality Management from Edinburgh
Napier University, Scotland, obtained after the marriage, and failed to
produce any cogent material to establish that his earning capacity was
restricted to the income claimed by him. During cross-examination, he
admitted his educational qualifications and that his employment corresponded
to those qualifications. The learned Family Court also noticed that the
petitioner could not satisfactorily explain several aspects relating to his
financial affairs and family background. These findings are based upon
appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot be characterised as arbitrary
or perverse.
22. The petitioner has also challenged the direction granting an annual
enhancement of maintenance at the rate of 5%. This contention does not merit
acceptance. Maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to
ensure that the wife and the minor child are able to maintain themselves with
dignity and in a manner broadly commensurate with the status enjoyed during
the subsistence of the marriage. It is a matter of judicial notice that the cost of
living and inflation increase with the passage of time, resulting in a gradual
erosion of the real value of a fixed maintenance amount. A direction providing
for a reasonable annual enhancement merely preserves the efficacy of the
maintenance awarded and cannot, by itself, be said to be arbitrary or contrary
to law. In the facts of the present case, an annual enhancement of 5% cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 9 of 10

be said to suffer from any patent illegality warranting interference in exercise
of revisional jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality,
perversity or material irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2020
passed by the learned Principal Judge (East), Family Courts, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction
under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
24. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on the
evidence available on record and do not call for re-appreciation in revision.
Therefore, the impugned judgement dated 13.02.2020 is upheld.
25. Consequently, the present Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
MADHU JAIN
(JUDGE)
JULY 27, 2026 /ys/rm
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:27.07.2026
22:24:21
CRL.REV.P. 16/2021 Page 10 of 10