* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: April 08, 2026 + CRL.REV.P. 1143/2019, CRL.M.A. 39473/2019, CRL.M.A.

39474/2019, CRL.M.A. 43322/2019, CRL.M.A. 5230/2023, CRL.M.A. 10849/2023, CRL.M.A. 10881/2023 GURPREET SINGH SANDHU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Mr. Shashi Prakash Dwivedi and Ms.

Aishwarya Saxena, Advocates Versus HARPREET KAUR @ SILKY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kuma and Mr. Paramjeet Singh, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE J U D G M E N T (ORAL

1. Succinctly put, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.09.2009 in accordance with Sikh rites and customs at Delhi. No child was born out of the wedlock. With passage of time, the matrimonial relationship between the parties turned sour, and subsequently, as alleged by the petitioner, the respondent/ wife left the company of the petitioner on 06.01.2012 and has since been residing separately. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, which culminated in passing of the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2019, after the parties had filed their respective affidavits of income, and were relegated to trial and after arguments were heard on their behalf. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent, which is payable by the petitioner herein.

2. Aggrieved thereby and assailing the impugned judgment, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present revision petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to consider that the respondent is a qualified and established Dental Surgeon (MDS) running her own clinic as also working with various hospitals and is earning around Rs.3.6 lakhs per annum, which is evident from her Income Tax Returns. As per him, the respondent is fully capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled to any maintenance. He submits that the petitioner on the other hand is a person with limited means, having a monthly earning of approximately Rs.27,000/- and is also responsible for maintenance of his aged parents.

4. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent has deliberately deposed wrongly/ supressed about material facts before the learned Trial Court as she has projected her income to be a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas her Income Tax Returns, demonstrates that she is earning around Rs.3.6 lakhs per annum. He submits that during her cross- examination, the respondent has denied having a PAN card or being an income tax assessee, however, the evidence of the Income Tax Inspector, along with the Income Tax Returns placed on record, clearly establishes the existence thereof.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent has voluntarily deserted the company of the petitioner without any justifiable reason and is, therefore, not entitled to claim any maintenance. He also submits that the respondent has set up a false case regarding her residence by relying upon fabricated rent agreements in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts, whereas she has, in fact, been residing at her parental home in Ghaziabad since the date of separation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned, passed after due consideration of the entire material/ evidence on record, and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, thereby warranting any interference from this Court. He submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the respondent by applying the settled principles judicial precedents, and that mere qualification or some earning does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance unless it is shown that she is able to maintain herself in a manner commensurate wit