Harshita Gupta vs Nimit Gandhi

$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 April, 2026
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 180/2026&CRL.M.A. 10263/2026
HARSHITA GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ruchi Munjal, Advocate.
versus
NIMIT GANDHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Aseem, Ms. Seema Seth, Ms.
Muskaan Deswal, Ms. Kashish Jain,
Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The point raised in the present petition is very short and precise.

2. Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) and, inter alia , prayed for
maintenance and alternate accommodation or rent @Rs.75,000/- per month.
3. On 25.08.2023, her application under Section 23 of PWDV Act was
disposed of.
4. No relief was granted to her as learned Magisterial Court came to the
opinion that it was not a case where complainant was unable to maintain
herself and that she had capacity to work and maintain herself.
5. The wife i.e. petitioner herein had also prayed for alternate
accommodation of same level and fact remains that no such relief has been
granted to her as per the abovesaid order dated 25.08.2023.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned First
Appellate Court which was registered as CRL.A. No. 382/2023.
7. Fact, however, remains that petitioner also knocked the doors of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 180/2026 1

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.05.2026
10:06:40

learned Family Court by filing a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and
learned Judge, Family Court directed maintenance @ Rs. 25,000/- per month
vide order dated 31.05.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid order, both
the sides i.e. husband and the wife have filed separate Revision Petitions
which are pending adjudication before this Court and certain directions in the
abovesaid matters have also been given on 19.12.2025 .
8. The abovesaid appeal came up for further consideration before the
learned First Appellate Court on 31.01.2026 and it has adjourned the
proceedings of the abovesaid appeal till the aforesaid Revision Petitions are
disposed of by this Court.
9. Such order dated 31.01.2026 is under challenge.
10. Needless to emphasize, any such wife can seek maintenance by taking
recourse to various statutory provisions, including by filing a petition under
Section 125 Cr.P.C and by filing appropriate complaint under the provisions
of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV).Though, at
times, the facts might be somewhat overlapping, merely because a petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending before a superior Court i.e. before the
Family Court Judge, it would not by itself, mean that the Magisterial Court
cannot or pass any directions. Any such approach would render the provision
of PWDV Act redundant. Reference be made to Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2
SCC 324 whereby it is held that there is no bar to seek maintenance under
different statutes. Paragraphs 60-61 of the abovesaid judgment read as under:-
“60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes.
For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to
direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the
relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a
previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 180/2026 2

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.05.2026
10:06:40

subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment.
While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil
court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously
instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.
61. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being
passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding,
the Applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed
therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded
in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the
order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party
would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.”

11. Mr. Khanna, learned Senior counsel for respondent submits that there
is no merit in the appeal as in view of the observations made in Kuldeep Kaur
vs. Swaran Kaur through LRs: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593, the wife is not,
even otherwise, entitled to any such right of residence. He submits that since
there is already a decree of divorce, the wife is not entitled to seek any
maintenance or alternate accommodation.
12. While refuting the abovesaid contention, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the decree of the divorce is already under challenge.
13. Fact, however, remains that it is entirely up to the learned First
Appellate Court to consider the facts and the legal proposition and then to
answer the same in accordance with law. This Court, at the moment, is only
required to see whether the Court should have kept the appeal in abeyance or
should have decided the same.
14. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the present petition is
disposed of with the direction to learned First Appellate Court to decide the
abovesaid appeal, irrespective of the pendency of the abovesaid two Revision
Petitions pending before this Court.
15. Needless to say, it would give due opportunity of hearing to both the
sides and then dispose of the abovesaid appeal in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 180/2026 3

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.05.2026
10:06:40

16. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not given any observation
with respect to the merits of the abovesaid appeal and the learned Trial Court
would not feel prejudiced, either way by any of the observation appearing
hereinabove.


(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2026/ sw/sa
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 180/2026 4

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.05.2026
10:06:40