Delhi High Court – Orders
Saurabh Sethi vs Bhawna Dhawan And Anr on 6 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025
SAURABH SETHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikash Malik, Mr. Sunny Sharma
and Mr. Amit Mathur, Advocates.
versus
BHAWNA DHAWAN AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Aggrawal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 06.08.2025
1. The instant petition under Section 442 read with Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,1 (formerly Section 401/482
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) is directed against order dated 28th
November, 2024, passed by Principal Judge, Family Courts, West, Tis
Hazari Courts in MT No. 244/2023 titled ‘Bhawna Dhawan & Anr v.
Saurabh Sethi’. By the impugned order, the Petitioner has been directed to
pay interim maintenance of INR 12,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1
(his wife) and INR 8,000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 (the minor
daughter of the parties), in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. The Petitioner married Respondent No. 1 on 5th February, 2022, in
1
“BNSS”
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 1 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The couple has a
daughter, Respondent No. 2, who resides with Respondent No. 1. Due to
marital discord and irreconcilable differences, the parties have been living
separately since 2nd February, 2023.
3. Respondent No. 1 has instituted a petition under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. The petition
remains pending. By the impugned order, the Trial Court assessed the
income of the parties and fixed interim maintenance in the amounts noted
earlier. The relevant extracts of the order, reflecting the reasoning adopted
by the Trial Court is as follows:
“10. The object and spirit of interim maintenance is to award
maintenance to the spouse who has no independent or sufficient
income to support him/her and to contest the legal battle. In other
words, the purpose of maintenance is to put the parties in a
comfortable position and to enable the financially weaker spouse to
prosecute his/her case. It is also important to note that maintenance
provision is not meant to equalize the income or assets of the spouses
or for that matter to penalize or cause undue enrichment to either. The
crux of the matter is that the Court is required to adopt a fair and
balanced approach while deciding the claim for maintenance.
However, it does not ipso facto leads to the conclusion that whatever
the petitioner deposes can be taken as a gospel truth. However,
whatever this Court decides, it must be realistic.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC
324 observed as under:
“78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia
are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children; whether the Petitioner no. 1 is educated
and professionally qualified; whether the Petitioner no.1 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
Petitioner no. 1 was employed prior to her marriage; whether
she was working during the subsistence of the marriage;
whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment2
“Cr.P.C.”
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 2 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
opportunities for nurturing the family; child rearing, and
looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of
litigation for a non- working wife.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, cited the
factors to be considered for determining maintenance as laid down by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Bharat Hedge v, Smt Saroj
Hegde 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622, which are:
1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the respondent has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the Petitioner no.1 to live in a similar
lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Respondent’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter; education, medical
attendance and treatment etc. of the petitioner no. 1.
8. Payment capacity of the respondent.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income
of the respondent when all the sources or correct sources are
not disclosed.
10. The respondent to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded Under Section 125 Code of Criminal
Procedure is adjustable against the amount awarded Under
Section 24 of the Act
13. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove,
certain additional factors that would also be relevant for determining
the quantum of maintenance payable, were further enumerated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case as:
(a) Age and employment of the parties
(b)Right to residence
(c)Where wife is earning some income
(d)Maintenance of minor children
(e)Serious disability or ill health
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner no. 1 got married with the
respondent on 05.02.2022 at Delhi and that petitioner no.2 is their
daughter. The petitioner No. 1 and her daughter are residing in the
house of petitioner no. 1’s parents in Delhi since 02.02.2023. The
petitioner no. 1 is suffering from cancer and is presently unemployed.
Admittedly, the respondent is not paying anything to the petitioners
going to show that he is neglecting the petitioners and has refused to
maintain them, despite having means. The respondent has claimed
that he was working as a freelancer for real estate consultants/dealers
at various places especially at Delhi and Gurgaon and earning
Rs.14,000 to Rs.15,000 per month which was fluctuating as per
availability and market demands. The bank account statement of the
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 3 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
respondent with SRI shows deposits in the month of December 2021
totaling to about Rs. 34,000/- and in January 2023 to about Rs.
35,000/-. In his Punjab National Bank Account in the month of
January 2021 there are deposits totaling to about Rs.83,000/- / and
in March 2022 to about Rs. 22,000/-. The said deposits are more than
the claimed income of the respondent going to show that he is not
disclosing his real income.
15. It is a settled legal position that when the respondent tries to
conceal his income and fails to produce the relevant i documents or
does not appear, the income has to be assessed on the basis of guess
work based upon the status of the parties, their lifestyle, and the social
background of the parties. Reference is made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Debradun (1977) 7 SCC 7, were in it was held that:
“Considering the diverse claims made by the parties, one
inflating the income and the other suppressing, an element of
conjecture and guesswork does enter for arriving at the income
of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical
precision.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) observed as
under:
“63. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on
the basis of pleadings, where some amount of guess-work or
rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie
assessment of the amount to be a warded. It is often seen that
both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct
details, and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult
for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant
of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of
the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding
tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income.”
17. Going by the standard of living of the parties, their status and the
totality of facts and circumstances brought on record, the income of the
respondent is assessed as about Rs.35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month.
Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousand) per month for the petitioner No.
1/wife and Rs. Rs. 8,000/- (rupees eight thousand) per month for the
minor daughter of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent namely
Harnoor Sethi (petitioner No.2) from the date of filing of the
application till disposal of the petition. The interim maintenance shall
be paid by the respondent on or before the 10th day of each succeeding
calendar month by depositing the same in the bank account of the
petitioner No. 1. Arrears of maintenance shall be paid by the
respondent within 6 months from today by depositing the same in the
bank account of the petitioner No.1. The maintenance already awarded
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 4 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
or granted in favour of the petitioners in this or any other legal
proceedings shall be adjusted. Nothing in this order shall tantamount to
giving an opinion on the merits of the main petition. The application for
interim maintenance is accordingly disposed off.”
4. Counsel for the Petitioner states at the outset that there is no objection
to the maintenance awarded in favour of Respondent No. 2. The challenge is
confined to the amount awarded to Respondent No. 1 being excessive, based
on an inaccurate assessment of her earning capacity. In support, following
submissions are advanced:
4.1. Respondent No. 1 is a college graduate and an able-bodied
professional, having been gainfully employed as a Travelling Consultant
both before and after the marriage, with an income of approximately INR
45,000/- in 2022. She possesses the qualifications and capacity to maintain
herself, and cannot seek to invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a means of
deriving an unmerited financial advantage.
4.2. Respondent No. 1 has deliberately withheld details of her bank
accounts and other income sources. Such non-disclosure, amounts to
concealment of material facts which, if disclosed, could have materially
influenced the assessment of her financial needs and the quantum of
maintenance.
4.3. The Petitioner’s own earnings, as reflected in his income affidavit, are
modest, in the range of INR 15,000/- to 17,000/- per month. Despite this, the
Trial Court has directed him to pay a total interim maintenance of INR
20,000/- per month to both Respondents, a figure, which, according to him,
exceeds his means.
4.4. Respondent No. 1 has been wilfully residing separately without any
sufficient cause. Thus, as per settled law she is disentitled to claimCRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 5 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
5. Heard. At the outset, it must be emphasized that that the impugned
order concerns only interim maintenance, a provisional arrangement
intended to safeguard the subsistence needs of the claimant during the
pendency of proceedings. Such orders are interlocutory in nature, and are
subject to modification or adjustment upon appreciation of evidence at the
final stage, and are intended to ensure that a dependent spouse or child is not
left without means while the lis is pending.
6. The Trial Court found the Petitioner’s assertion of earning merely
INR 14,000/- to INR 15,000/- per month to be inconsistent with the credit
entries in his bank statements, which reflected deposits significantly higher
than his declared income, including amounts of Rs. 34,000/- in December
2021, Rs. 35,000/- in January 2023, and even Rs. 83,000/- in January 2021.
This, coupled with his failure to produce complete financial records, led the
Trial Court to conclude that his actual earnings were being understated.
Drawing on the principle articulated by the Supreme Court Jasbir Kaur
Sehgal v District Judge, Dehradun3 that in maintenance proceedings an
element of reasonable guesswork is permissible when income is concealed
or not fully disclosed, the Trial Court assessed the Petitioner’s monthly
income in the range of INR 35,000/- to INR 40,000/-. The rationale is based
on settled position that, in such cases, the Court must have regard to the
parties’ standard of living, social background, and overall circumstances,
rather than rely solely on the self-serving statements of either party. Viewed
thus, the Trial Court’s method of assessing income was not only legally
permissible but also consistent with the broader objective of Section 125
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 6 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
Cr.P.C., to prevent neglect of dependants where the earning spouse’s true
capacity is being obscured.
7. Respondent No. 2, a minor under three years of age, remains in the
care and custody of Respondent No. 1. In these circumstances, the
expectation that Respondent No. 1 should seek employment, even if she
possesses the qualifications and prior work experience suggested by the
Petitioner, is unrealistic. This is compounded by the undisputed finding of
the Trial Court that she is undergoing treatment for cancer, a condition that
itself severely limits her earning capacity and ability to engage in regular
employment. The record also reflects that the Petitioner has not contributed
financially towards the upkeep of the minor, thereby evidencing neglect in
fulfilling his parental obligations. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha,4
has laid down comprehensive guidelines for the determination of
maintenance. Adhering to these principles, the Trial Court has rightly
directed the Petitioner to pay interim maintenance, having taken into account
the fact that Respondent No. 1 is presently unemployed, solely responsible
for the care and upbringing of her minor daughter, and is concurrently
undergoing treatment for cancer.
8. The allegation that Respondent No. 1 deliberately withheld details of
her bank accounts and other income sources are unsubstantiated. No
documentary proof has been adduced to establish such concealment, nor is
there material to indicate that disclosure of such details would have
materially altered the Trial Court’s assessment of her financial needs or the
maintenance payable.
3
(1997) 7 SCC 7
4
(2021) 2 SCC 324
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 7 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
9. Equally untenable is the contention that Respondent No. 1 has been
living apart from the Petitioner without sufficient cause. The record is
devoid of any evidence to suggest that the separation was voluntary or
without justification. In the absence of such proof, the disqualification under
Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.
10. At this stage, it bears emphasis that an able-bodied husband carries a
legal duty to maintain his wife and children. In Shamima Farooqui v.
Shahid Khan5 the Supreme Court reiterated that a healthy, able-bodied man
cannot shirk this responsibility on the pretext of limited means or other
excuses. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that this obligation is amplified
when the children are in the care of the wife. Moreover, the Supreme Court
in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg6, categorically made the following
observations:
“The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is
the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the
wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn
money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could
not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds
mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, it has been held
that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person
for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a
deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy
remedy.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. Having regard to the foregoing discussion and the settled principles
governing interference in revisional jurisdiction, no arbitrariness, legal
infirmity, or perversity is discernible in the impugned order so as to warrant
interference.
5
(2015) 5 SCC 705.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 8 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56
12. It must be reiterated that an order of interim maintenance is a
provisional measure aimed at ensuring the subsistence and basic financial
security of the claimant during the pendency of proceedings. Such an
arrangement neither crystallises the ultimate rights and obligations of the
parties nor forecloses a fresh determination upon a full appraisal of evidence
at the final stage.
13. For these reasons, the petition stands dismissed, along with all
pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 6, 2025/MK
6
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 231/2025 Page 9 of 9
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 15/08/2025 at 23:01:56