Delhi High Court – Orders
Arvind Singh vs Kiran Singh & Anr on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40532/2019, CRL.M.A.
40533/2019, CRL.M.A. 32792/2024
ARVIND SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Grover and Mr. Sanjeev
Sharma, Advocates with Petitioner in
person.
versus
KIRAN SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Astha, Advocate with R-1 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Sections 397, 399 and 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 impugns order dated 17th July, 2019,
passed by the Principal Judge (East District), Family Court, Karkardooma,
in MT No. 339/2018, whereby the Respondent’s petition under Section 125
of Cr.P.C was allowed, and the Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of INR
20,000/- per month to the Respondents.
2. A brief background leading to the filing of the present petition is as
follows:
2.1. The Petitioner is the husband of Respondent No. 1. Their marriage
was solemnized on 21st November, 2007 according to Hindu rites and1
“Cr.P.C”
CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59
customs. A son was born from the marriage on 30th September, 2009, who is
arrayed as Respondent No. 2. Owing to alleged demands for dowry and
incidents of physical abuse, the Respondents left the matrimonial home and
have been residing separately since 2012.
2.2. On 17th May, 2012, the Respondents filed a petition under Section
125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance of INR 60,000/- per month.
2.3. Parallelly, proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.2 In the said
proceedings, an application under Section 23 of the DV Act was filed by
Respondent No. 1 and by order dated 15th April, 2015, the Petitioner was
directed to pay interim maintenance of INR 3,000/- to Respondent No. 1 for
the expenses of Respondent No. 2 with effect from date of filing of the
petition, with arrears to be cleared within 3 months.
2.4. After recording of evidence, on 17th July, 2019 the impugned order
was passed whereby the final maintenance amount of INR 20,000/- per
month for both the Respondents from the date of filing of the petition.
3. Counsel for the Petitioner along with the Petitioner in person, submits
that the impugned order is erroneous and disregards the true income of the
Petitioner. The Family Court did not consider that by order dated 15th April,
2015 in proceedings under the DV Act, it was observed that the expected
income of the Petitioner is the minimum wages of INR 8,632/- per month,
and thus, the award of INR 20,000/- as maintenance is excessive and must
be reduced. The Family Court has also failed to consider that the Petitioner’s
expenses are being borne by his father as the Petitioner is unemployed. It is2
“the DV Act”
CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59
further submitted that Respondent No. 1 has recently become the owner of a
property and is an M.A. graduate, capable of supporting herself.
4. In response, counsel for the Respondents along with the Respondent
No. 1 in person, states that Respondent No. 1 has been unemployed since the
year 2019 and her expenses are presently being borne by her mother who
receives a monthly pension of INR 15,000/- and an income of INR 20,000/-
as rent. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has not disclosed his true
income as he has supressed the fact of being a business owner, carrying out
a business of supply of shoes under the name Ganesh Traders/Jagriti
Traders, which he operates from his home. Moreover, the Petitioner also
works as a Table-Tennis coach, which too he has concealed. Since the
separation, Respondent No. 1 has been solely responsible for the expenses of
their son, who is currently undergoing higher education in a Government
School after having studied in a private school.
5. The Court has considered the afore-noted facts and contentions and
perused the material on record. The relevant observations as noted in the
impugned order reads as follows:
“29. I have gone through the affidavit of income, assets and liabilities
filed by petitioner Smt. Kiran Singh. She states that she married to
respondent on 21.11.2007 and living separately since 03.03.2012. She is
MA pass and teacher and earning Rs.5000/- per month. However, monthly
expenses are Rs.20,000/- per month. She stated that Ms. Rajni Ranga, Ld.
MM, Delhi granted interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in petition
under Section 12 of D.V. Act. She further stated that respondent was
working at Shree Ganesh Traders and now he is running business in the
name and style of “Jagriti Traders” and earning Rs.1 lakh per month. she is
also having one child Master Manav aged about 8 years, who is stying at
S.P. School at Khoda Colony, Ghaziabad, UP. She is dependent upon her
mother and brother.
30. The respondent also filed affidavit of income, assets and liabilities.
He states that there is a Car (Zen) bearing No. DL2CR 0367 purchased byCRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59
his father and brother. He has been paying insurance premium of
Rs.33,707/- annually through his father. Further, premium of LIC, Medi-
claim, house and vehicle policy of Rs.33992/- per annum also paid by his
father. He mentioned in remaining columns of the affidavit as ‘NA’ or ‘Nil’.
xx…………….xx…………….xx
34. The petitioner filed Ex. PW1/K Visiting Card of respondent in
which he has mentioned his mobile number as well as proprietor of Shree
Ganesh Traders. The respondent has not produced any evidence to
contradict that this visiting card never belongs to him. The petitioner also
filed certain receipts which are marked to Shree Ganesh Traders showing
the supply of shoes. The petitioner also proved the LIC policy Ex. PW1/0 in
the name of the respondent. The petitioner further proved the R/C of Car
bearing No. DL2CR 0367 in the name of the respondent as Ex. PW1/P. The
petitioner further filed the photograph Ex. PW1/M of the residence of the
respondent wherein the Jagriti Traders board clearly visible and stock of
shoes also shown in the photograph. The other photograph shows that on
motorcycle there are shoes kept for supply. The petitioner further proved
that minor son Master Manav is studying in 4th class and receipts shows
expenses of books of Rs.3115/- and other expenses of Rs.1800/-.
35. The respondent has taken a plea that he is suffering from
depression. However, he has not examined any doctor or medical record to
show that the depression is to the such extent that he is not able to do any
kind of job. He has filed certain receipts with medicines but they are not
proved by him. The respondent himself admitted that he is undergoing
medical treatment being under mental duress. The stand put forward by
respondent that his retired old father has been bearing all his expenses by
running shoe business is unbelievable. The petitioner in order to wriggle out
taken the shoulder of his father which is unbelievable. The documents
proved on record by the petitioner clearly established that the respondent
has been carrying on business of shoes initially in the name of “Ganesh
Traders” and now in the name of “Jagriti Traders”. Further, the respondent
himself admitted that he has gifted an Apple Laptop to his son recently. It
clearly established that he has sufficient means and sources of income that
is why he purchased and gifted an Apple Laptop. The respondent failed to
maintain the petitioner/wife as well as the minor son. The petitioner has
honestly put forward true and correct facts that she has been working as
temporary teacher and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Therefore, in the
circumstances, as per documents and testimony of both the parties as well
as affidavits of income, assets and liabilities, I grant maintenance @
Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioners.
CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59
In view of my observations and discussion, it is held that petition is
maintainable and petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the respondent.
Accordingly, both the issues are decided in favour of petitioner and against
the respondent.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
36. In view of my observation and discussion on the issues and keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the case, I award maintenance @
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousands only) per month for both the
petitioners. I further direct that the respondent shall pay the maintenance
from the date of filing of the petition. The respondent shall also pay
litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to the petitioners. The arrears shall be
cleared within one year in equal monthly installments. The respondent shall
start paying the maintenance from July, 2019. The monthly maintenance
and arrears of maintenance shall be paid through bank draft/ directly in the
account of the petitioner no.1. The monthly maintenance shall be
transferred directly in the account of the petitioner no.1 between 1st to 10th
day of every month. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Petitioners
further be entitled to an increase of 3% per annum in future on maintenance
awarded. Maintenance already paid by respondent to the petitioners, if any,
in this case or in any other case in any other court shall be adjusted
accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.”
(sic)
6. As is evident from the above, the Family Court, after a thorough
consideration of the income affidavits, oral testimonies and supporting
documentary evidence, reached a reasoned conclusion in awarding INR
20,000/- as monthly maintenance. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan3
the Supreme Court has observed that a healthy, able-bodied husband is
legally obligated to provide maintenance to his wife. The Court further
emphasized that this principle gets heightened when the children are with
the wife. In the present case, while the Family Court may not have
quantified the Petitioner’s exact monthly income, it relied upon a
3
(2015) 5 SCC 705
CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59
comprehensive evaluation of material evidence indicating the Petitioner’s
involvement in a business namely, the supply of shoes under the names
Shree Ganesh Traders/Jagriti Traders and found the claim of complete
unemployment to be unsubstantiated. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1
has been solely supporting the minor son, Respondent No. 2, since 2012,
and the evidence reflects that her meagre income and dependence on her
mother are insufficient to meet the basic needs of both herself and the child.
Accordingly, the maintenance award appears reasonable, both in law and
equity, considering the status and financial responsibilities of the parties.
7. The Petitioner’s reliance on order dated 15th April, 2015 to argue that
his income was assessed at minimum wage level and hence, the final
maintenance of INR 20,000/- is excessive, is misplaced and untenable.
Notably, the said order is interim in nature and was passed based on a prima
facie assessment. The said interim order did not conclusively determine the
Petitioner’s income, but merely presumed a minimum wage earning for the
purpose of temporary relief. In contrast, the impugned order was passed
after examination of affidavits of income, cross-examination of parties, and
evaluation of documentary evidence. It is well-settled that in maintenance
proceedings, where parties do not disclose their true incomes, the Court is
permitted to make guess work while estimating the income of the non-
applicant.4
8. In view of the above findings, this Court finds no perversity or
illegality in the reasoning adopted by the Family Court that would warrant
interference under its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition
4
Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622
CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59
stands dismissed.
9. Disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 1, 2025
d.negi
CRL.REV.P. 1196/2019 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 21:55:59