$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 77/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32505/2024 ANURAG MANOHAR KANKERWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocate.

versus SOHAM RANI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ruby Rani, Mr. Sunnirudh Kumar and Mr. Ganesh Singh, Advocates CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner-husband seeks setting aside of the order dated 02.08.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟], passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-03, Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟], in MT No. 387/2020, vide which his application – seeking review of order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, granting interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and minor son „A‟ – was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnised on 13.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two male children, „S‟ and „A‟, were born on 25.08.2015 and 06.05.2017 respectively. However, owing to matrimonial discord between the parties, their relationship deteriorated and they started living separately in March 2019. It is stated that the elder son „S‟ is presently in the custody of the petitioner-husband, whereas the younger son „A‟ is in the custody of the respondent-wife.

3. Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint dated 31.08.2020 filed by the respondent-wife, FIR bearing No. 265/2020 was registered for offences under Sections 34/406/498A/354A of the IPC.

4. Subsequently, on 20.10.2020, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter „PWDV Act‟] against the petitioner-husband and his family members, levelling several allegations of mental, physical and economic abuse. It was also stated that the petitioner-husband was employed as a Junior Engineer in MCD and was earning about ₹80,000/- per month as salary, along with rental income of about ₹1,00,000/- per month. During the course of proceedings under PWDV Act, the statement of the respondent- wife was recorded by the learned Trial Court in on 14.03.2022, wherein she stated that a property in Rohini had been purchased in her name by the petitioner-husband in the year 2018 for about ₹40,00,000/-, for which the petitioner-husband had arranged the finances. She further stated that after their separation in April 2019, the said property was sold with her consent and she received about ₹40,00,000/- as sale consideration in her bank account. Out of the said amount, about ₹20,00,000/- was utilised towards repayment of a bank loan and the remaining amount was withdrawn by her. She further stated that the said amount had been spent by her during the years 2020 and 2021 towards the upkeep of herself and the minor child in her custody, and that about ₹2,00,000/- was still available with her for meeting her expenses. Eventually, vide order dated 28.02.2023, the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay ₹15,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and ₹10,000/- per month to the minor son „A‟ as interim maintenance, with effect from the date of passing of the said order. The learned Trial Court further observed that the sale consideration amount of ₹20,00,000/-, which had admittedly been received by the respondent-wife, shall be adjusted towards the interim maintenance for the period from April 2019, i.e., when she had left the matrimonial home, till the date of passing of the said order, which would amount to about ₹40,000/- per month.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2023, the petitioner-husband preferred an appeal under Section 29 of PWDV Act and the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 01.04.2024, held that the interim ma