SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
ANKUSH KUMAR PARASHAR – Appellant
Versus
SAPNA @ MONA – Respondent
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 131/2025 & CRL.M.A. 8765/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pramod Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajbir Singh Sagar

The court determined that maintenance amounts must balance adequate support for the wife and child with the financial capability of the husband, emphasizing evidence in determining such amounts.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438/442 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance petition - The maintenance amount was set at Rs.25,000/- but later reduced to Rs.17,500/- monthly, broken down into Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.7,500/- for the child because the petitioner’s income was not adequately represented, alongside his obligations towards parents and other expenditures. (Paras 34-35)

(B) Maintenance - The award must factor in the husband's financial ability whilst ensuring the wife and child receive adequate support. Previous evidence and assertions regarding salary were critical in influencing the final amount. (Paras 30-34)

Facts of the case:
The relationship dynamics between the petitioner and respondent involved allegations of domestic discord, with the petitioner asserting his wife voluntarily deserted him and sought unreasonable maintenance. Courts navigated allegations of harassment and financial liabilities before reaching the conclusion on maintenance quantum.

Findings of Court:
The Court modified the maintenance award in acknowledgement of the petitioner’s actual income and liabilities, thus ensuring a fair balance of responsibilities.

Issues: The core issues revolved around whether the wife had deserted her husband without cause, and the appropriate amount of maintenance considering both parties' financial situations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that maintenance must provide enough support while not overburdening the payer, justifying changes to the maintenance order based on the actual earnings of both parties and existing familial obligations.

Result: The maintenance order was modified as above.

Table of Content
1. the husband's claim regarding his wife's desertion and his responsibilities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. court's observations on marital discord and allegations. (Para 4 , 24 , 26)
3. assessing the financial dynamics of the parties involved. (Para 6 , 15 , 27)
4. determining an equitable maintenance amount considering financial situations. (Para 28 , 32 , 34)

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 438 /442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Ankush Kumar Parashar for setting aside/modify Order dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Courts, North District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in MT Case No.504/2019, whereby Petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C .’) filed by the Respondents was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month.

2. It is submitted that the Petitioner/Ankush Kumar Parashar and Respondent No.1/ Sapna @ Mona got married on 02.07.2017 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child, namely, Master Madhav/Respondent No.2 was born from the said wedlock on 13.06.2018, who is presently in custody of Respondent No.1. She is alleged to have left the matrimonial home by her free will, without any sufficient reason.

3. The Petitioner has claimed that he has been deprived of love, affection and bonding with his son, as Respondent No.1 on several occasions, has rejected his request to meet the son. The Petitioner also approached the Respondents through common family members and well- wishers to join his company, but Respondent No.1 remained under the influence of her family members and kept insisting that the Petitioner must shift in the vicinity of her parental home.

4. She used to spend less time in her matrimonial home and more with her parents. There were several instances when she insulted and abused the Petitioner publically and threatened him with dire consequences, if he did not sever his ties with his parents and family members. Their relationship turned from bad to worse over of period of time.

5. Eventually, she withdrew from the company of the Petitioner without sufficient reasons in April, 2018. Thereafter, she filed a Maintenance Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C . in November, 2019 claiming maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, only to extort money from the Petitioner and harass him.

6. She alleged that the Petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.70,000/- per month, even though no document was produced in support of this assertion. She also alleged that the Petitioner has no liability except that of the Respondents, whereas he is maintaining his parents, who are senior citizens and unemployed.

7. The Petitioner has asserted that he is willing to keep and maintain the Respondents. He made bona fide effort to resolve the issues by approaching Respondent No.1 and her family members on 10.04.2021 and went to her parental home for productive conversations.

8. The Petitioner has submitted that he was working as Assistant Process Manager, Eclerx-Agllyst, DLF. He had filed his Written Statement and Affidavit of Income and Bank Account Statements in the Maintenance Petition, which reflects his net salary after deductions as Rs.36,000/- per month. Additionally, he had purchased a Flat in the year 2016 for which he was paying EMI of Housing Loan @ Rs.11,341/- per month. He is also paying rent @ Rs.9,000/- per month, aside from spending about Rs.8,000/- per month on the expenses of his parents and Rs.7,000/- per month towards his personal expenses. He further submits that because of his medical condition, he was unable to lead evidence in the present case.

9. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 is B.Com. (Graduate). Prior to their marriage, she was teaching in a school and presently she is doing tailoring/boutique work and is earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month.

10. It is further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top