The court reaffirmed that in revisional jurisdiction, interference is limited to correcting perversity or illegality. It upheld the husband's sacrosanct duty to maintain his wife and children regardless of claimed financial hardship, using the 'Family Resource Cake' principle for equitable distribution of income.

JUDGMENT

1. By virtue of the present revision petition under Sections 438/442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner/ husband seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 05.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (learned Family Court) in MT Case No.181/2016 titled ‘Smt. Neeta Singh & Ors. v. Sh. Lokesh Kumar Singh’ by virtue whereof the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month to the respondent no.1/ wife till she is alive/ gets remarried, and Rs.11,000/- per month each to the respondent nos.2 and 3/daughters till they attain majority, become financially independent or gets married.

2. Briefly put, marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 12.06.2006 at Siwan, Bihar as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, two daughters i.e., respondent nos.2 and 3 were born out of the said wedlock. With passage of time, their matrimonial relationship turned sour, which as per respondent no.1, resulted in her returning to her parental home along with respondent nos.2 and3.

3. Subsequently, in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Family Court, the respondents sought maintenance. This culminated in passing of the impugned judgment dated 05.10.2024.

4. Mr. Vijay Kinger, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment is solely based on conjectures and surmises as nothing filed by him has been appreciated. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.1 had voluntarily/ willingly withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any justified cause/ reason, even though the petitioner tried reconciling the differences with her. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was working on a contract basis without any regular source of income and was, therefore, not in a position to pay the maintenance to the respondents. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner has suffered/ suffering from various health issues, including tuberculosis, diabetes, and heart problems and is also taking care of his elderly dependent mother and paying off loans.

5. Lastly, Mr. Vijay Kinger, learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.1 is a well-qualified educated women having bachelordegree in commerce, who is capable of maintaining herself, however, only with the intent to harass the petitioner, she has filed Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings. In fact, in her cross examination, the respondent no.1 herself admitted that previously she was working with Delhi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., which was intentionally not mentioned in her income affidavit.

6. Per contra, Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned one which has been passed after taking into consideration all the materials before the learned Family Court. The same, thus, suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring inference from this Court, much less in a revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s claims about illness, financial trouble, loan obligations, and responsibilities towards his mother were never mentioned before the learned Family Court and, therefore, these claims cannot be permitted to be agitated for the first time in this revision petiti