Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 10.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 05.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 08.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 171/2024 & CRL.M.A. 38498/2024,
CRL.M.A. 38499/2024, CRL.M.A. 38500/2024
POONAM SINGH RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Meera Kaura Patel
(DHCLSC), Ms. Ritika Saini
and Ms. Monika Chowdhary,
Advocates
Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha,
DHCLSC in CRL.M.A.
38435/2025
versus
BHARAT SINGH RAWAT .....Respondent
Through: Respondent-in-person
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 (impleadment of R-2) in
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 171/2024
1. By way of the present application, the applicant, i.e., the
second wife of the respondent-husband, seeks her impleadment in the
above-captioned petition, whereby the petitioner-wife assails the
judgment dated 16.04.2024 [hereafter „ impugned judgment ‟] passed
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
by the learned Judge, Family Court-02, East District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, in MT 247/2021, titled „ Poonam Singh Rawat &
Others v. Bharat Singh Rawat ‟. The said petition had been filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[hereafter „ Cr.P.C. ‟] by the petitioner herein, claiming maintenance
for herself as well as for the two minor children in her custody.
2. By way of the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2024, the
learned Family Court was pleased to grant maintenance of ₹10,000/-
per month each to the minor daughter and son of the petitioner and
the respondent, amounting to a total of ₹20,000/- per month, till such
time as they remained entitled to receive the same as per law.
However, no maintenance was awarded to the petitioner-wife in view
of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., on the ground that she was residing
separately from her husband without any sufficient reason.
3. Aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to herself, the
petitioner-wife preferred the present petition.
4. In the meantime, it is also pertinent to note that the marriage
between the parties was solemnized on 20.01.2005 at an Arya Samaj
Mandir, and was again solemnized in the presence of their family
members on 30.04.2006. The parties were blessed with a female child
„M‟ on 03.03.2007 and a male child „A‟ on 15.10.2008. The
relationship between the parties turned sour, particularly in the years
2018 and 2019. In October 2019, the respondent-husband had filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereafter
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
„ HMA ‟] against the petitioner-wife, seeking restitution of conjugal
rights, which petition was opposed by the petitioner. The said petition
was eventually withdrawn in May 2022. Prior thereto, the petitioner-
wife had filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty
against the respondent (i.e., HMA no. 739/2022) in April 2022. In
August 2022, the respondent-husband instituted a petition under
Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the HMA (i.e., HMA no. 1410/2022),
seeking divorce from the petitioner-wife on the grounds of cruelty as
well as desertion.
5. By way of a judgment dated 16.01.2024, the learned Family
Court was pleased to allow HMA no. 1410/2022 and dissolve the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, after holding that
the petitioner-wife had deserted, as well as inflicted cruelty upon, the
respondent-husband. However, the divorce petition filed by the
petitioner-wife was not decided by the learned Family Court.
6. It is in this background of the judgment dated 16.01.2024 that
the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned judgment
dated 16.04.2024, held that the petitioner-wife was not entitled to
maintenance since she had deserted the respondent-husband.
7. It is further relevant to note that the judgment dated 16.01.2024
passed by the learned Family Court, granting divorce in favour of the
respondent-husband, was challenged by the petitioner-wife before the
Division Bench of this Court by way of MAT.APP. (F.C.) 256/2024
in August 2024, and vide order dated 13.08.2024, the operation of the
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
said judgment and the decree passed thereunder was stayed by the
Division Bench of this Court.
8. Notably, on 29.07.2024, the respondent-husband solemnized
marriage with the applicant. The applicant states that the said
marriage was solemnized on 29.07.2024, in accordance with Hindu
rites and ceremonies, after the expiry of the statutory period for
assailing the judgment of divorce. It is thus contended that the said
marriage is legally valid in terms of Section 15 of the HMA.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, i.e., the first
wife of the respondent, submits that the applicant, being the second
wife of the respondent, seeks her impleadment in the present revision
petition. However, the lis in question is confined to the issue of
maintenance between the revisionist and her children on the one
hand, and the respondent on the other. It is contended that the
applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party, as her presence is
not required for the effective adjudication of the present proceedings,
and therefore, she ought not to be impleaded. It is further submitted
that impleadment of the applicant would unnecessarily delay the
proceedings and unduly widen their scope. The learned counsel also
argues that merely by virtue of being the second wife of the
respondent, the applicant cannot claim impleadment as a matter of
right, particularly when no relief has been sought against her in the
present petition. It is contended that the revisionist, being dominus
litis , cannot be compelled to litigate against a person against whom
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
no relief is claimed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present
application be dismissed.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant, i.e., the
second wife of the respondent, submits that the applicant is a
necessary party to the present petition, being the legally wedded wife
of the respondent, and that her marriage was solemnized after the
decree of divorce had attained finality in terms of Section 15 of the
HMA. It is further submitted that the presence of the applicant is
essential for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues
involved in the present maintenance proceedings. It is also argued
that, in the absence of impleadment, any order passed in the present
proceedings may adversely affect the rights of the applicant, thereby
resulting in a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be impleaded as a party to
the present proceedings in the interest of justice.
11. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
petitioner as well as the applicant, and has perused the case file.
12. The issue before this Court is whether the applicant, who
claims to be the second wife of the respondent, ought to be impleaded
as respondent no. 2 in the present case, and whether her non-
impleadment has any bearing on the adjudication of the present
petition.
13. At the outset, this Court is of the considered opinion that a
person may be impleaded in a petition only if such person qualifies
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
either as a necessary party or a proper party to the proceedings in
question, i.e. the lis .
14. A “necessary party” is one who ought to be joined in the
proceedings and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed
by the Court. Non-impleadment of such a party is fatal to the
proceedings. A “proper party,” on the other hand, is not essential for
passing an effective decree, but whose presence enables the Court to
completely, effectively, and conclusively adjudicate upon all the
issues involved in the dispute, even though no relief may be directly
granted to or against such party.
15. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport
(P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd: (2010) 7
SCC 417 , in context of civil suits, held as under:
“8. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that
the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the
persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be
compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any
relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to
be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this
general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2)
of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”), which provides
for the impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said
sub-rule is extracted below:
“Court may strike out or add parties
(2) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either
upon or without the application of either party, and on such
terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the
name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff
or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person
who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit, be added.”
The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage
of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance),
either upon or even without any application , and on such terms
as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following
persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to
have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b)
any person whose presence before the court may be necessary
in order to enable the court to effectively and completely
adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In
short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any
person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. A
„necessary party‟ is a person who ought to have been joined as
a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be
passed at all by the Court. If a „necessary party‟ is not
impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A „proper
party‟ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person
whose presence would enable the court to completely,
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in
disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of
or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not
found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no
jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the
plaintiff…..”
16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Nazra Khatoon v. Mohd.
Zafar & Ors.: 2025 DHC 10008 , has reiterated the distinction
between necessary and proper parties and has also laid down the tests
for determining who qualifies as a necessary party. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 4 . A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been
joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree
could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not
impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper
party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person
whose presence would enable the court to completely,
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in
dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of
or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not
found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no
jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff.
Merely the fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest
in the suit property, after the suit is decided against the
plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a
proper party to the suit. Two tests are to be satisfied for
determining the question as to who is the necessary party and
these tests are - (a) there must a right to some relief against
such party in respect of the controversies involved in the
proceedings and (b) no effective decree can be passed in the
absence of such party. Proper party is one whose presence is
necessary for effective and complete adjudication of all the
questions involved in the suit.”
17. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that a person may
be impleaded in a proceeding only if such person qualifies either as a
necessary party or a proper party; in the absence thereof, no third
party can be added to the array of parties merely at the instance of
such person.
18. In the present case, the applicant, who is the second wife of the
respondent, asserts that she may be adversely affected in the event the
proceedings are decided in favour of the revisionist. However, this
Court is of the view that such an apprehension, by itself, does not
confer upon her the status of either a necessary or a proper party for
the purposes of the present proceedings.
19. Insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, the
revisionist has instituted the petition seeking maintenance from the
respondent for herself and their children. In this Court‟s opinion, the
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
applicant is neither a necessary party, in whose absence the matter
cannot be effectively adjudicated or any enforceable order cannot be
passed, nor can she be regarded as a proper party, as her participation
is not required for a complete, effective, and comprehensive
determination of the issues involved in the present lis. The
proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are confined to the
rights and obligations inter se the petitioner and the respondent, and
the status or claims of the applicant, if any, do not have any direct or
substantial bearing on the adjudication of such rights.
20. Further, one of the contentions raised by the applicant for
seeking impleadment is that she would be adversely affected if the
revision petition is allowed and maintenance is granted to the
revisionist, as she is dependent upon the respondent. It is also
contended that she married the respondent after a decree of divorce
had been granted in his favour and maintenance had been denied to
the revisionist. This contention also is unmerited and cannot be
accepted. If such a plea were to be entertained, it would open the
door for every person claiming to be dependent, upon a person from
whom maintenance is sought, to seek impleadment in such
proceedings, which would unnecessarily enlarge the scope of what
are otherwise summary proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Such an approach would render the adjudication of the present
revision petition unwieldy and defeat the very purpose of proceedings
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which are intended to be expeditious
and limited in scope.
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
21. It is also to be noted that no relief has been sought by the
petitioner against the applicant. The dispute is essentially between the
petitioner and the respondent, and the petitioner, being dominus litis,
cannot be compelled to litigate against a person against whom no
relief is claimed. The presence of the applicant is, therefore, not
required for the effective adjudication of the present case.
22. Moreover, even assuming that the applicant is financially
dependent upon the respondent-husband, it always remains open to
the respondent to place all such relevant facts before this Court. It is
also to be noted that though the applicant claims to have married the
respondent after a decree of divorce had been granted in his favour,
the said decree of divorce has admittedly been stayed by the Division
Bench of this Court. The validity and effect of the said decree, as
well as the rights flowing therefrom, are therefore sub judice before
the Division Bench and would be adjudicated in those proceedings.
23. In the present proceedings, this Court is concerned only with
the limited issue of maintenance as between the petitioner-wife and
the respondent-husband. It is well settled that even a divorced wife is
entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., subject to
the statutory conditions. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioner-
wife cannot be negated solely on account of the respondent‟s
subsequent marriage, especially when the very decree of divorce is
under challenge and its operation stands stayed.
24. Further, in the event the revision petition is allowed, the Court,
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
while determining the quantum of maintenance, would necessarily
take into account the overall financial capacity of the respondent,
including his income, liabilities, and obligations towards other
dependents, if any. In this context, even if the applicant claims to be
dependent upon the respondent, such a circumstance can always be
brought on record by the respondent himself and duly considered by
the Court while fixing the quantum of maintenance. This position
stands settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha:
(2021) 2 SCC 324 , wherein comprehensive guidelines have been laid
down for determining maintenance, including the requirement to
consider the financial responsibilities and liabilities of the
respondent-husband towards his dependents.
“ III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to
ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution
or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket
formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are
the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and
dependant children; whether the Applicant is educated and
professionally qualified; whether the Applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient
to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the Applicant
was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working
during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was
required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for
nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult
members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-
working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain this Court held that the
financial position of the parents of the applicant- wife , would
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance.
An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the
circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has
no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is
no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated
and could support herself. The court must take into
consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the
spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent
upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for
maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband,
his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own
maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is
obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would
be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the
appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court
must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband,
as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living.
The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of
income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to
maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational
qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all
relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in
matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the
Respondent, and the standard of living that the Applicant was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance
amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid
either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife
should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive
and unbearable for the Respondent, nor should it be so meagre
that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the
quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain
herself with reasonable comfort.”
25. Thus, the interest of the applicant, if any, is sufficiently
safeguarded within the existing framework of adjudication, and her
impleadment is neither necessary nor warranted for the purposes of
the present proceedings.
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
26. The applicant has also contended that her non-impleadment
would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as any order passed in her absence would adversely affect
her rights. This submission is equally untenable in this Court‟s
opinion, since the principles of natural justice are attracted where a
person‟s legal rights are directly and substantially in issue before the
Court. In the present case, no adjudication is being undertaken with
respect to any independent right of the applicant, and the proceedings
in this petition are confined to determining the statutory obligation of
the respondent to maintain the petitioner and the children born out of
their wedlock.
27. As already noted above, no relief has been claimed against the
applicant, nor is any determination being made regarding her marital
status or her independent rights in this petition. At best, any impact
on the applicant would be indirect or incidental, arising out of the
financial obligations of the respondent. Such an incidental effect
cannot be equated with a direct infringement of rights so as to attract
the principles of natural justice or to confer a right of impleadment.
Accordingly, the plea of violation of natural justice, being
misconceived, is also rejected.
28. Therefore, having considered the submissions made and the
settled position of law, and in view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court is of the considered view that the presence of the applicant is
neither necessary, nor required for the effective adjudication of the
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40
present proceedings. The controversy in the captioned revision
petition is confined to the claim of maintenance by the petitioner and
her children against the respondent-husband, and the impleadment of
the applicant would only unnecessarily expand the scope of the
proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and lead to avoidable
delay. Thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant is neither a
necessary nor a proper party to the present revision petition, and her
impleadment is not called for.
29. Accordingly, the application seeking impleadment stands
dismissed.
30. It is, however, clarified that any observations made herein are
confined to the adjudication of the present application and shall not
prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the main petition
or in any other proceedings pending between them.
31. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 05, 2026/
TD/RB/AP
CRL.M.A. 38435/2025 in CRL.REV.P.(MAT). 171/2024 Page 14 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40