The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and two daughters. The High Court reiterated that a husband cannot escape his legal and ethical obligation to support his family, describing it as a “sacrosanct duty” that must be performed even by undertaking physical labour.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who upheld the Family Court’s order directing the petitioner to pay ₹11,000 per month to his wife and ₹11,000 per month to each of his two daughters.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the petitioner (husband) and respondent no. 1 (wife) was solemnized on June 12, 2006, in Siwan, Bihar, according to Hindu rites and customs. Two daughters (respondent nos. 2 and 3) were born from the wedlock.
Over time, matrimonial discord arose, leading to the wife returning to her parental home along with their daughters. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Family Court. On October 5, 2024, the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, allowed the application, directing the husband to pay ₹11,000 per month to the wife until her lifetime or remarriage, and ₹11,000 per month to each daughter until they attain majority, become financially independent, or get married.
Challenging this order, the husband filed a revision petition under Sections 438/442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagararik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner (Husband): The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vijay Kinger, contended that the Family Court’s judgment was based on “conjectures and surmises.” He argued that:
- The wife had voluntarily and willingly withdrawn from the husband’s company without any justified cause, despite his reconciliation efforts.
- The husband was working on a contract basis without any regular source of income and was not in a position to pay maintenance.
- He is suffering from multiple health conditions, including tuberculosis, diabetes, and heart ailments, and is also responsible for maintaining his elderly dependent mother and repaying loans.
- The wife is well-qualified, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Commerce, and is capable of maintaining herself. During cross-examination, she admitted she had previously worked with Delhi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., which she did not disclose in her income affidavit.
For the Respondents (Wife and Daughters): The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, argued in favor of the impugned judgment, asserting that:
- The Family Court’s order was well-reasoned and passed after thorough consideration of all materials on record.
- The husband’s assertions regarding his illness, financial constraints, loan obligations, and care of his mother were never raised before the Family Court. Consequently, these claims could not be raised for the first time in a revision petition.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
1. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that the scope of interference in a revisional jurisdiction is extremely narrow. Relying on the landmark rulings in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 and Pyla Mutyalamma vs. Pyla Suri Demudu (2011) 12 SCC 189, the Court noted:
“Unless, the petitioner is able to show the same perverseness and/or illegality, this Court cannot speculate and/ or form an opinion which is contrary to what has been held by the learned Family Court.”
The Court clarified that a revision petition cannot be used to re-agitate issues already settled or to introduce new facts. It noted that for any new facts arising from a change of circumstances, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court.
2. Legal and Ethical Duty of the Husband
Addressing the husband’s plea of financial incapacity and contract-based employment, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1314. The Court observed:
“…the husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children inasmuch as it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them. It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, even by doing physical labour, and could not avoid his obligation.”
Accordingly, the Court rejected the husband’s plea that his lack of regular income exonerated him from his maintenance obligations.
3. Discrepancy in the Husband’s Financial Claims
The Court noted that while the husband claimed to be working as an underpaid contractor (“like Lala ki Dukaan Par Kaam”) and blamed unemployment on factory closures in Panipat due to pollution regulations, his own written submissions and financial records contradicted these assertions:
- The husband admitted in his written statement that he possesses technical expertise.
- Salary slips from February 2021 to April 2021 showed a gross monthly salary of approximately ₹40,000.
- His bank statements showed regular credit entries, including a transaction of ₹59,975 from Abhi Homes in March 2022.
- He had previously agreed to pay maintenance of ₹25,000 and ₹30,000 during mediation sessions in 2016 and 2020.
- Records showed he had been offered employment with salary prospects ranging from ₹80,000 to ₹1,00,000.
Concerning the wife’s educational background, the Court held that her past employment was insufficient to establish her current ability to sustain herself and her daughters.
4. Evaluation of the Maintenance Quantum
The Court upheld the Family Court’s allocation of ₹11,000 per month to each of the three respondents. It found the calculation in consonance with the “Family Resource Cake” principle laid down by the Delhi High Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004) SCC OnLine Del 192. Referring to the precedent, the Court noted that the judiciary must:
“…first ascertain the net disposable income of the Husband/ primary earner of the family and, where the other spouse is also earning, such income is likewise required to be taken into account. This collective income forms the ‘Family Resource Cake’, which is thereafter equitably distributed among the family members by dividing the same into two portions for the husband, and one portion each for the other members.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that there was no perversity, illegality, irregularity, patent error, or arbitrariness in the Family Court’s order dated October 5, 2024. Finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and all pending applications.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh v. Ms. Neeta Singh & Ors.
- Case No.: CRL.REV.P. (MAT.) 177/2024, CRL.M.A. 38813/2024 & CRL.M.A. 10432/2025
- Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
- Date: May 20, 2026
