Shri Manav Tandon vs Sidhi Luthra & Anr.

$~P-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 03.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Uploaded on: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010345442026
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 & CRL.M.As. 22997-22998/2026
SHRI MANAV TANDON .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Taneja, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
SIDHI LUTHRA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
% JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner - husband assails an order
dated 11.05.2026, passed by the Family Court, whereby interim
maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- was granted in favour of respondent No. 1 –
wife and respondent No. 2 – their minor son.
2. I have heard Mr. Ashok Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 was
solemnised on 21.04.2019, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs.
A son was born from the wedlock on 11.09.2023. The petitioner and
respondent No. 1 started living separately from 10.06.2025.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23

4. Thereafter, the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”] before the Family Court
seeking maintenance from the petitioner. In the said petition, respondents
averred that their monthly expenses were to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-,
and that the income of the petitioner was around Rs. 32-35 lakhs per
annum.
5. By the impugned order dated 11.05.2026, the Family Court
directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- per
month to the respondents [Rs. 37,500/- for each respondent] from the date
of filing the application till disposal of the petition. Relevant observations
from the Family Court have been reproduced hereinbelow:
6. At this preliminary stage, it would not be appropriate to delve into
“
merits of this case so as to ascertain as to which party was guilty of
matrimonial offence, if any. It is a matter of general experience that in
matrimonial disputes, parties are used to inflating expenses and deflating
their incomes. It is an admitted position that the parties are not living with
each other since long. Having perused the records and having considered
the above submissions, this Court finds that respondent has not placed any
record to suggest that the petitioner No. 1is earning anything . Infact the
bank statement placed on record by petitioner no. 1 corroborates the above
observation. On the other hand, this court notes that the bank statement
placed on record by respondent reflects credit of Rs. 1,70,000/- per month
in favour of respondent from HCL Technologies Ltd. That apart, this
court notes that in every June (month), an even larger sum is credited in
favour of the respondent by HCL Technologies Ltd.. Also, respondent
seems to have been transferring large funds on a regular basis in favour of
‘Manu‘/’Manav Tandon’/‘MAA’. He has not bothered to explain the said
debits made from his bank accounts. Admittedly, respondent has not placed
on record his ITRs or his salary slips despite oral directions passed by this
court earlier in the day. Given the above facts and circumstances, this court
finds it appropriate to hold that the respondent is earing at-least Rs. 2
lakhs per month. Admittedly, respondent has not placed on record any
details of the ‘loan’ availed by him.
7.As such, after deducting the sum of Rs.50,000/- being paid by the
respondent to his parents for their maintenance on a monthly basis, the
petitioners are held entitled to maintenance @ Rs.75,000/- per month
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23

(Rs.37,500/- for each petitioner) from the date of filing of the application till
the disposal of the petition filed by petitioners. Arrears, over and above
Rs.75,000/- be paid deposited in the bank account of petitioners by the
respondent within a period of five months from today. The respondent is
further directed to pay monthly maintenance from the month of May, 2026
itself on or before 20th day of this month. Thereafter, from the month of
June, 2026 the said amount be paid on or before 10th day of each English
calendar month. Needless to add that it any payment has been made by the
respondent to petitioners towards ad-interim maintenance/ interim
maintenance i.e., after filing of the present petition in any Court, then the
1
same shall be adjusted against die above dues.”
6. Mr. Taneja submitted that the Trial Court erred in assessing the
petitioner’s monthly income at Rs. 2 lakhs. He relies upon the petitioner’s
salary slips for February 2026 and June 2026 [Annexure P-5], reflecting a
net monthly income of Rs. 1.68 lakhs and Rs. 1.76 lakhs, respectively,
and his ITR for Assessment Year 2025–26, which reflects a total annual
income of Rs. 17,81,310/-. He further submitted that directing the
petitioner to pay 50% of his income to the respondents is excessive,
particularly as his financial liabilities, including a housing loan, expenses
towards his dependent parents, and necessary personal expenses, have not
been duly considered.
7. Mr. Taneja further submitted that respondent No. 1 is a qualified
teacher who used to work in a school and is presently undertaking private
tuitions and earning therefrom. He therefore contended that her earning
capacity and ability to maintain herself ought to have been taken into
account while determining the quantum of maintenance.
8. Having heard Mr. Taneja, and considering the material on record, I
find no ground warranting interference with the impugned order of
interim maintenance in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this
1
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23

Court. The scope of such jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to
reappreciation of evidence or reassessment of factual findings, except
where the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error or material
irregularity. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the
2
Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. , which
observed as follows:
“ 12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and
examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it
bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with
law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that
the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions
of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These
are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have
to be determined on its own merits.
xxx xxx xxx
18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such
cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should
be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is
involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse
finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is
done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension
or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in
such cases.
xxx xxx xxx
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to
examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial
court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not
specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397
is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order
2
(2012) 9 SCC 460.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23

passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The
jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-
compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous
or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily…….. ”
The same has been reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh
3
Rao .
9. It is well settled that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent
destitution of the wife and children. The provision is intended to secure
the basic sustenance and dignity of the wife and children and to ensure
that a husband does not evade his moral and familial obligation to
maintain them despite having sufficient means to do so. In Bhuwan
4
Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. , the Supreme Court held as follows:
2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
“
(for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish,
financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the
reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can
be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if
they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from
grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled
in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the
house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play,
and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a
prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being
had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance
with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the
husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A
situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to
resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally
impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial
support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour,
if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from
3
(2023) 17 SCC 688.
4
(2015) 6 SCC 353.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23

the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband
on any legally permissible grounds. ”
10. Accordingly, while determining interim maintenance, the Court is
required to balance the needs of the wife and minor child with the
financial capacity and existing obligations of the husband.
11. In the present case, the Family Court estimated the petitioner’s
monthly income at Rs. 2 lakhs for the purpose of determining interim
maintenance, in absence of the petitioner’s salary slips or ITRs. As
regards the petitioner’s contention that respondent No. 1 is earning
through private tuitions, no material was placed before the Family Court
establishing her income. Similarly, although the petitioner claimed to be
servicing a housing loan, no document was produced before the Family
Court in respect of such liability. The Family Court, however, took into
account the petitioner’s obligation towards his parents and deducted a
sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month on that account while determining the
interim maintenance.
12. Considering that the maintenance is awarded for the wife, as well
as the minor child, the amount of Rs. 75,000/- per month, cannot, in the
circumstances, be said to be excessive or disproportionate.
13. The impugned order concerns only interim maintenance, and the
aforesaid assessment was made on the material available before the
Family Court at that stage. The actual income and liabilities of the
petitioner, the earning capacity of respondent No. 1, and the entitlement
to maintenance would ultimately be determined on the basis of the
evidence and material brought on record during the proceedings, in
accordance with law. In these circumstances, the assessment made by the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23

Family Court cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error or
material irregularity warranting exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of
this Court.
14. The petition, alongwith pending applications, is accordingly,
dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties
before the Family Court.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
B/AD/
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 425/2026 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:23