##PAGE1##

$~82

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: December 18, 2025

+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 578/2025 & CRL.M.A.

37891/2025, CRL.M.A. 37892/2025, CRL.M.A.

37893/2025

SH ANKIT KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Adv.

(through VC)

versus

MS SONAM .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 14.07.2025 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by

the learned Judge, Family Court, Saket Court, New Delhi in MT

No. 402/2023 whereby the learned Family Court in an

application preferred by the respondent under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) directed the

petitioner to pay interim maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month to

the respondent.

2. The learned Family Court considered the bank statement

of the petitioner along with his income affidavit. It was noted that

from the bank statement filed by the petitioner from the year

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:HARMINDERCRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 578/2025 Page 1 of 4

KAUR

Signing Date:22.12.2025

15:40:58

2021 to the year 2024, it transpired that apart from a fixed salary,

there was also a regular inflow of money in the account of the

petitioner. It was noted that the money transfers in the account of

the petitioner were by way of UPI and PhonePe applications

apart from a salary transfer from Kings Security Guard that

seemed to be the petitioner’s employer. Consequently,

considering the credits in the account of the petitioner, the

learned Family Court assessed the income of the petitioner as

₹50,000/- to ₹60,000/- and awarded a sum of ₹12,000/- as

interim maintenance to the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is working as an office boy and earning a sum of

₹17,500/- per month. He submits that in such circumstances the

learned Family Court erred in awarding a sum of ₹12,000/- per

month as interim maintenance to the respondent. He submits that

the petitioner also has to take care of his mother, sister and

grandmother and submits that the payment of ₹12,000/- per

month to the respondent is not feasible.

4. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397

and 401 of the CrPC is narrow and circumscribed. Interference is

warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent

illegality, perversity, gross impropriety, or results in miscarriage

of justice.

5. It is equally well-settled that orders granting interim

maintenance are based on a prima facie assessment of material

placed before the Court, and ordinarily ought not to be interfered

with unless the finding is wholly arbitrary or untenable.

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:HARMINDERCRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 578/2025 Page 2 of 4

KAUR

Signing Date:22.12.2025

15:40:58

6. It is pertinent to note that the relationship between the

parties has not been disputed.

7. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that

while granting interim maintenance, the learned Family Court

took into account all the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Further, while doing so, the learned Family Court noted that in

addition to the salary of ₹17,500/-, there was regular inflow of

money in the account of the petitioner. The learned Family Court

further took into account the account statement of the petitioner

till April 2024 and noted that the following credits were made to

the petitioner’s account including his salary : ₹50,000/- in

November 2023, ₹75,000/- in December 2023, more than

₹52,000/- in January 2024, around ₹98,000/- in February 2024

and more than ₹53,000/- in March, 2024. As rightly appreciated

by the learned Family Court, the petitioner could not provide any

explanation in regard to the other amounts credited to his

account. The learned Family Court further noted that the

respondent did not have any source of income.

8. Consequently, considering that the account statement of

the petitioner revealed that there was a credit of ₹3,26,000/- in a

span of five months, the learned Family Court rightly asses