##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: July 29, 2026 % Pronounced on: August 11, 2026

+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024, CRL.M.A. 35886/2024 ASHUTOSH RAI ASTHANA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, Ms. Isha Kapoor, Mr. Jai Saini, Adv Sudhanshu

Sharma, Advocates (through VC)

versus YAMITA RAI ASTHANA .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Shruti Gupta, Adv. (through VC)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Hereinafter as “BNSS, (erstwhile Sections 397/ 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Hereinafter as “Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, Hereinafter as “FC Act, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Family Court (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter as “learned Family Court in M.T. Case 323/2021 titled as ‘Yamita Rai

Asthana vs. Ashutosh Rai Asthana’.

2. Succinctly put, it is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between him and the respondent got solemnised on 02.11.1995 and out of

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.08.2026

18:12:23

the said wedlock, two children were born therefrom. Thereafter, due to differences/ marital spat between the parties herein, on 09.04.2021, the respondent sought maintenance from the petitioner by way of an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, an ad- interim maintenance amounting to Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the respondent by the learned Family Court vide order dated 15.01.2022 and thence, the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 was passed, whereby the respondent was granted an interim maintenance amounting to Rs.30,000/-

payable from the date of filing of the said application.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition impugning the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned

Family Court.

4. At the outset, Mr. Piyush Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances and status of the parties, particularly since (i) the petitioner herein is responsible for taking care of financial needs of both the children born out of the wedlock, particularly the elder daughter, who is pursuing MBBS, which is admittedly an expensive course; (ii) the respondent herein is an extremely qualified and educated women, (being an MBA Finance graduate) who is more than capable of earing for herself; (iii) the respondent has rental as well as interest income accruing from FDs; (iv) the respondent is residing at the house bought by the petitioner herein; and lastly that; (v) there are multiple loans taken by the petitioner which have to be repaid. As such, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the

impugned order passed is liable to be set aside.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.08.2026

18:12:23

5. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 as also on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court entitled Bharat Hedge v. Shrimati Saroj, (2007) SCC OnLine Del 622 to argue that the object/ intent of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution for which various factors, i.e., status of the parties; reasonable wants of the claimant; independent income and property of the claimant; the number of persons and non-applicant has to maintain; the amount which is required to live in a similar lifestyle as he/ she enjoyed in matrimonial home; non-applicant’s liabilities and payment capacity of the non-applicant, has to be seen by the Courts to ascertain the quantum of maintenance. Thus, it was prayed that

the present petition ought to be allowed.

6.