$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 555/2025, CRL.M.A. 36800/2025, CRL.M.A.

36801/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36802/2025 ARVIND SINGH CHAUHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj and Ms.

Ananya Tiwari, Advs. along with revisionist through VC versus CHANCHAL & ANR .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025

1. This petition assails the judgment dated 30^th July, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT. No. 297/2021 titled as “Chanchal & Anr. v. Arvind Singh Chauhan” whereby on a petition filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “CrPC” a maintenance of INR 12,500/- has been awarded in favour of the child of the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner (husband) got married to Respondent no. 1 (wife) on 4^th February, 2018 as per Hindu rites and customs. From this marriage they have one child (Respondent no. 2) who is presently in the custody and care of Respondent no. 1. On account of marital discord and temperamental difference, the parties have separated and their litigations on going. Respondent No. 1 has instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,, “DV Act” as well as the present proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child.

3. On consideration of the affidavits of assets and liabilities, the oral evidence led by the parties, and the bank account statements placed on record, the Family Court concluded that Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to maintenance, having concealed her employment and income. However, having assessed the earning capacity of the Petitioner on the basis of the material available on record, maintenance of INR 12,500/- has been awarded in favour of Respondent no. 2. The said amount was directed to be adjustable against any maintenance paid or payable under other proceedings. 4. It is admitted that Respondent No. 2 is the minor child of the Petitioner. In that backdrop, the limited question that arises for consideration is whether the maintenance amount of INR 12,500/- per month is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the Petitioner’s actual income and financial capacity.

5. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is employed at IGI Airport and earns a modest salary in the range of INR 15,000/- to INR 18,000/- per month, as reflected in the salary slips placed on record. A substantial portion of the Petitioner’s income is expended towards daily travel and conveyance, and that he is also responsible for the upkeep and medical expenses of his aged and ailing parents. It is argued that, in these circumstances, the award of INR 12,500/- per month towards maintenance of the minor child is disproportionately high and beyond the Petitioner’s means, rendering the impugned order unreasonable. While asserting that the

Petitioner does not shirk his responsibility towards his child, it is contended that Respondent No. 1, who has been found to be gainfully employed and earning approximately INR 20,000/- per month, ought to contribute proportionately towards the maintenance and welfare of the minor child.

6. The Court has considered the aforesaid facts and submissions. The Family Court has expressly declined to accept the Petitioner’s projected income of INR 15,000/- to INR 18,000/- per month, and the reasons for such rejection are discernible from the impugned judgment, which reads as follows:

9.17 The respondent in his income affidavit submitted that he is a BBA and has general expenses of Rs.15,000/- p.m. He stated himself to be residing with his parents and that his father is suffering from blood pressure and diabetes and is dependent upon him alongwith his mother. He further stated that he is working with a company, GAAR at IGI Airport as Sr. Executive and is getting a monthly salary of about Rs.20,000/-. It is further claimed that he had taken an education