Page 1 of 24

$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:30.05.2022

Pronounced on: 03.06.2022

+

CRL.REV.P. 792/2018 & CRL.M.A. 14266/2021

SARITA BAKSHI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

G.P.

Thareja

and

Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocates

versus

STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP

for State with SI Vijay Dutt,

P.S. Laxmi Nagar.

Mr.

Saurabh

Kansal

and

Ms.

Ashu

Chaudhary,

Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

INDEX

S. No.

Particulars

Pages

1. Facts of the Case

2-6

2. Submissions of learned counsels

6-7

3. Section 125 Cr.P.C.

7-12

2022:DHC:2219

Page 2 of 24

i) Objective

7-10

ii) Law

10-12

4.

Section 127 Cr.P.C.

12-15

i) Objective

12-14

ii) Law

14-15

5. Change

in

circumstance

in

context of Section 127 Cr.P.C.

15-16

6. Dependency/Dependent

16 7.

Findings

17-23

8. Conclusion

23-24

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the

order dated 04.07.2018, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein respondent no. 2

was directed to pay revised maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six

Thousand only) per month to the petitioner.

Facts of the Case

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under:

a)

The marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with

respondent no.2 as per Hindu rituals on 06.12.1992. Out of the

wedlock, a son was born on 20.09.1993. Disputes arose

between the petitioner and respondent no.2 herein, and

subsequently the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125

of Code of Criminal Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of

2022:DHC:2219

Page 3 of 24

maintenance. By virtue of order dated 14.10.1998 learned

Metropolitan

Magistrate

(MM)

directed

respondent

no.2/husband to pay maintenance in sum of Rs.450/- per

month to petitioner and Rs.350/- per month to the son.

(b)

On 24.09.2007, the petitioner filed an application under

Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Learned MM. An ex parte order

was passed in the absence of respondent no. 2, wherein the

learned MM enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 2200/- per

month, for both the petitioner as well as the son. The ex parte

order was challenged by respondent no.2 under Section 126 of

Cr.P.C., however, the application was dismissed. The said

order was challenged by respondent no. 2 vide order dated

13.5.2010 wherein the Learned Appellate Court remanded

back the case to the learned MM with direction to decide the

application on merit and till the said application was decided,

interim maintenance was awarded as per order dated

24.09.2007.

(c)

Consequently, both the parties were heard afresh on

application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. and by judgment

dated 20.01.2011, the application was allowed. The learned

MM granted maintenance of Rs. 2,200/- per month to

petitioner/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the son from the

date of filing of petition till the date of order. Commencing

from the date of the order, enhanced maintenance of Rs.3,000/-

2022:DHC:2219

Page 4 of 24

per month to the petitioner/wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to

the son was awarded.

(d)

Since there was increase in the income of respondent

no.2 in February 2018, the petitioner/wife filed another

application u/s 127 Cr.P.C., praying for enhancement of

maintenance vide the impugned order dated 04.07.2018

respondent no.2 was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/-

per month to the petitioner from the date of the impugned

order during her lifetime or till she gets remarried. The

impugned order dated 04.07.2018 reads as under:-

“...14. Apart from vague allegations of the

respondent, which have been denied by the petitioner

No.1, there is no evidence to show that petitioner

No.1 is working anywhere or there has been change

in circumstances on