The duty of a husband to maintain wife and children is affirmed, especially when there is an admission of custody and dependency.

O R D E R

% 18.07.2025

1. The present revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [“BNSS”], is directed against the order dated 28^th March, 2025, [“impugned order”], passed by Family Court-01, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi, in MT No. 82/2022 titled Baby Aanya & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar. By the impugned order, the Family Court has awarded maintenance in favour of the Respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . ³

2. The Petitioner is a Head Constable in the Delhi Police. He married Respondent No. 3 on 10^th December, 2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Owing to matrimonial discord and irreconcilable CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 1 of 5 differences, the parties have since separated. From this marriage, they have two children; a minor daughter (Respondent No. 1) and a minor son (Respondent No. 2), both of whom presently reside with Respondent No. 3.

3. Respondent No. 3 instituted a petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. However, during the course of the proceedings, certain averments and submissions prompted the Family Court to proceed on the footing that the minor son was also in the custody of Respondent No. 3. On that basis, maintenance was awarded in favour of all three Respondents. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

“35. Keeping in view the facts of the case, income, liability and expenditure of both the parties, this Court allow the present petition in following terms:

A) petitioner no.1/daugther shall be entitled to maintenance @ Rs.8,000/-pm from the date of filing of present petition till she attains the age of majority.

B) Petitioner no.2/wife shall be entitled to maintenance @ Rs.12,000/-pm from the date of filing of present petition till life time or till petitioner no.2 remarries. She is also entitled for maintenance qua her son @ Rs.8,000/-pm from Jan,2025 till he attains the age of majority.”

4. The Petitioner, to his credit, does not dispute the award of maintenance to Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. However, it is submitted that the grant of INR 8,000/- per month towards Respondent No. 2 (the minor son) is factually misconceived and untenable, as his custody has always been with the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has been bearing the full expenses of the child’s education and welfare, including his school fees. In support of this assertion, counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Shikha Kaushik, 3 “CrPC”

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 2 of 5 draws attention on the ongoing custody proceedings, wherein the Petitioner has sought custody of the minor daughter (Respondent No. 1), while Respondent No. 3 has filed an application seeking custody of the minor son (Respondent No. 2). This, she submits, unequivocally establishes that Respondent No. 2 has remained in the Petitioner’s care.

5. Ms. Kaushik also refers to the finding of the Trial Court holding that Respondent No. 2 resides with Respondent No. 3 – which forms the basis of the maintenance award. She argues that this finding, as set out in paragraph 32 of the impugned order, extracted below, is premised on a wrong foundation.

“32. At the time of filing of present petition, son Atharva was residing with the respondent/father. In the cross examination respondent has admitted that Son Atharva is now residing with petitioner no.2 since Dec,2024. Since son is also now residing with petitioner no.2/mother hence petitioner no.2 is also entitled for maintenance towards the son.”

6. Ms. Kaushik submits that the Petitioner never conceded permanent or temporary custod