Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th September, 2025
RAJNEESH SINGH.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhik Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Pundir, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajneesh V. Pravina and Ms. Preeti Shrivastava and Mr. Bhuvneshwer Sharma, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The revisionist is before this Court seeking to set aside judgment dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South- West District, Dwarka, New Delhi in MT No. 532/2020 whereby his minor daughter’s petition seeking maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed.
2. Minor has been awarded maintenance @Rs.7,500/- per month w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., 21.12.2020 till the date of her marriage or till the date she starts earning on her own and is able to look after herself financially. The petitioner was also directed to pay arrears of maintenance within 6 months in the bank account of the respondent and future maintenance be paid on or before 10th day of each month w.e.f. June, 2025 till further order. Any money already received from the petitioner by the respondent was to be adjusted.
3. Succinctly put, the case pleaded by the revisionist is that he is suffering from chronic epilepsy and depression, is medically unfit for regular employment. He is disowned by his parents and reliant on limited support from his brother. Even the interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- was only met with such assistance. The enhancement to ₹7,500/- is thus arbitrary and ignores the revisionist’s fragile health and financial incapacity. Further, the finding that the petitioner is an "able-bodied person" without any disability is perverse and contrary to the medical records (Ex.RWl/2) and cogent evidence placed on record. By disregarding the material evidence and fastening a disproportionate liability on the petitioner the impugned order operates harshly and unjustly against him and is liable to be set aside.
4. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue on the lies of the grounds taken in the petition: 4.[1] The learned Trial Court has erred in law and on facts in enhancing the maintenance amount without taking into account the medical condition, unemployment, and financial incapacity of the Petitioner, thereby imposing an onerous and unreasonable burden upon him, which is neither in consonance with the principles of equity nor sustainable in law.
4.2. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner is a chronic epilepsy patient, unable to bear even his own medical expenses, and the enhancement of maintenance, without considering his medical incapacity, is manifestly unjust and contrary to settled principles that maintenance must be awarded having regard to the paying capacity of the party. 4.[3] The learned Trial Court, while passing the Impugned Order, has wrongly observed in para 16 that "The respondent is an able-bodied person. It is not the case of the respondent that he is suffering from any physical or mental disability", which finding is contrary to the records produced before it. The petitioner had duly filed his medical documents and treatment records establishing his medical condition, yet the same were ignored by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned finding is therefore perverse, unsustainable in law, and constitutes a valid ground for setting aside the Impugned Order. 4.[4] The learned Trial Court, while enhancing maintenance, did not undertake a proper assessment of the Petitioner's income, means, and capacity to pay, which is a sine qua non under law before fixing or modifying the quantum of maintenance, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable. 4.[5] The discretion vested in the Trial Court under the relevant provisions has been exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without balancing the needs of the Respondent with the genuine financial incapacity of the petitioner, thereby causing grave prejudice to him. 4.[6] The learned Trial Court has erred in imputing an arbitrary income of Rs. 22,411/- per month to the petitioner without any cogent proof or documentary evidence. It failed to appreciate that the appellant is medically unfit, suffering from epilepsy and depression, duly supported by medical records. The impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court by ignoring the dicta of the Supreme Court in various cases, wherein it has been observed that the health conditions of the non-applicant must be factored in while fixing maintenance. 4.[7] The learned Trial Court has ignored the admitted income of the respondent-mother, who in her own cross-examination stated that she earns Rs. 55,000/- per month as a teacher. This Court has held in various decisions that both parents have a joint responsibility to contribute proportionately, and the earning spouse cannot be allowed to conceal or downplay her income. It has failed to appreciate that the paramount consideration in maintenance matters is the "welfare of the child," which includes ensuring that both parents contribute in a balanced and proportionate manner. The order under challenge unjustly compels the appellant alone, while permitting the Respondent-mother to withhold her substantial earnings from consideration.
5. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no interference of this Court is warranted and the impugned order is well reasoned and thus the revision petition be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the petition merits dismissal.
7. Before proceeding, it would be appropriate to have a look at the impugned order, of which the relevant part is extracted herein below: “xxx xxxxxxx xxxx
5. EVIDENCE i. In petitioner's evidence, PW[1] Ms. Pravina Kumari (petitioner's mother) appeared in the witness box. She supported material averments of the present petition in affidavit Ex. PW1/A and proved the following documents: Sr. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Aadhar Card of petitioner's mother Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Marriage photograph Ex. PW1/2
3. Copy of police complaint dated 22.05.2012 Mark 'A'
4. Police complaint dated 06.12.2020 Ex. PW1/4
5. School fee receipts of Dhruvi Singh/petitioner for the period of April, 2017 to March, 2018 and April 2019 to March 2020 Ex. PW1/5(Colly) (OSR)
6. School fee receipts of Dhruvi Singh for the period of April 2023 to March Ex. PW1/6(Colly)
6. Respondent's evidence: i. In respondent's evidence, RW[1] Sh. Rajneesh Singh (respondent himself) appeared in the witness box. He supported material averments of written statement in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A. He has also relied upon the following documents:- Sr. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Newspaper Rashtriya Sahara dated 09.06.2012 Ex.RW1/1
2. Medical documents of respondent Ex. RW1/2
3. Copies of order sheet of petitioner under Section 9 of HMA filed by respondent Mark 'A'
4. Copy of complaint dated 01.06.2012 Mark 'B' Xxxx xxxxxx
15. RW-1 Rajneesh Singh has stated in his cross-examination that the petitioner Baby Dhruvi Singh is his daughter and present she is residing separately with her mother. Dhruvi Singh was born on 20.08.2010 and presently she is aged about 14 years. He was working in Helping Hand Foundation (NGO) since 2021 as a Volunteer. Many a times in different programmes of the said NGO they were paid like daily wagers for different jobs. On an average, he earns about Rs. 7,000/- per month. He was a graduate. Earlier, he was working in a BPO. In 2013, he suffered from depression and fits, therefore, he lost his job. His last salary in 2013 in the said BPO was Rs. 14,700/-. He denied that he was working with the above NGO since 2018. He voluntarily stated that from 2018 he was associated with the NGO but was not working on regular basis and was not getting any work or the wages. He had not worked with any other NGO except in his college days for 02-03 days. He denied that he was running the NGO helping hand. He denied that he had falsely stated his income at much lower side to avoid his liability to pay maintenance. He denied that he has income of about Rs. 2.[5] Lac per month. He was residing at the address given in his affidavit of evidence since 2011. He was residing with his cousin and the property/address belonged to his cousin. He was not paying any rent but sometimes he spent on purchasing some grocery etc. for the house of his cousin as a matter of obligation. He did not have much expenses on himself. His day to day expenses are taken care of by his cousin in respect of food etc. he was getting medicine from Pradhanmantri Chikitsalaya which are at a very lower cost. He was not paying any rent to his cousin. Maintenance to the petitioner was being paid out of the funds of his brother. He denied that petitioner's mother was residing separately with their daughter due to his matrimonial misconduct. He voluntarily stated that petitioner's mother was residing separately out of her own free will and she resided with him for few days after marriage. He denied that he was the owner of the property bearing No. H. No. 129, Sector- 51D, Noida, U.P. He denied that he was getting rental income from the Noida Property.
16. Perusal of his testimony reflects that respondent has attempted to conceal his real income to reduce his liability of maintenance. The respondent is an able bodied person. It is not the case of the respondent that he is suffering from any physical or mental disability.
17. As per admitted case of respondent himself he is working in a NGO and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. Respondent in his income affidavit stated that his monthly expenditure is Rs. 14,000/- per month. A person having income of about Rs. 7,000/per month cannot maintain all these expenses.
18. The parties come from good background & to evade the payment of maintenance, respondent claims that he is living with his cousin and getting medicine from Pradhanmantri Chikitsalaya at a very lower cost. However, he has not examined any witness from NGO to prove that he is working in a NGO & getting Rs. 7,000/-. The petitioner has alleged that respondent is a graduate & diploma holder of engineering while respondent has claimed in his affidavit of income & assets that he is 'Matric' pass. However, in his cross-examination he stated that he was a graduate. Respondent is a skilled person who has claimed that he was working in a BPO.
19. The petitioner's mother in her income affidavit has disclosed her monthly income as Rs. 30,000/- and in her cross-examination she stated that she was earning Rs. 55,000/-. The affidavit was attested on 31.03.2023 & cross-examination was recorded on 15.05.2024. However, the entire burden cannot put on one parent. The maintenance of a child is a shared responsibility of both parents. This principle is fundamental in ensuring the well-being and development of the child. Where parents separate it's essential to recognize that both parents have a legal & moral obligation to contribute to the upbringing and maintenance of their child. This includes providing financial support, emotional care & ensuring the child's physical & educational needs are met. Both parents are expected to contribute to the financial maintenance of the child which includes:a) providing for child's basic needs such as food, clothing & shelter b) paying for education & extra curricular activities c) Caring medical expenses & health care costs.
20. I have no doubt in my mind that keeping in view the assets of respondent and his expenses, he must be having monthly income of at least Rs. 22,411/- per month. Admittedly the minor child was born on 20.08.2010 and she is a student. In a city like Delhi, if a child is a student of a private school, the expenses cannot be less then Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per month. The petitioner is a student and living with her mother. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for maintenance from the date of filing of this petition.
21. Now, both the petitioner and the respondent are to share monthly expenses of the child. The petitioner admitted her monthly income is Rs. 55,000/- per month. Xxx xxx
25. A father has an equal duty to provide for his children and therefore, there cannot be a situation wherein it is only the mother who has to bear the burden of expenses for raising and educating the children. Xxx xxxx
28. Applying the above mentioned guiding principal, generally two shares of the income should go to the earning spouse and the one share to the claimant spouse and other dependents. In the present case, respondent has responsibility of himself and has no other liability. Hence, two shares of the monthly income should be left for the expenses of respondent and one share may be given for maintenance of the claimant. In view of the above discussion, in my view, petitioner is being neglected and discarded by respondent. Being child/son, petitioner is entitled for maintenance. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
29. Issue no. 3: Relief In view of the above findings, petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in following terms: i. Petitioner will be entitled for maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- per month w.e.f the date of filing of present petition (the present petition was filed on 21.12.2020) till the date of her marriage or till the date she starts earning on her own and is able to look after herself financially. Xxx xxxx xxxx NISHA SAΧΕΝΑ Principal Judge-Family Court South-West District/Dwarka, New Delhi/30.06.2025”
8. Impugned order shows that the petitioner had admitted during crossexamination that he was a graduate. Earlier, he was working in a BPO. He claimed that in 2013, he suffered from depression and fits, therefore, he lost his job. His last salary in 2013 in the said BPO was Rs. 14,700/-. The petitioner did not examine the author of his medical report Ex. RW1/2 to prove the same. Mere production of the said report is meaningless, as it has no evidentiary value and is thus of no avail to the petitioner. There is no other evidence, let alone reliable expert medical evidence to show that at the relevant time the petitioner had actually suffered from depression and fits and, if so, the depression and fits were such as had totally and permanently disabled him from continuing his job in the BPO.
9. Further, it is not shown/know whether he was removed by the employer on account of having suffered from depression and fits or else himself had voluntarily left that job. In such situation, this court is not inclined to accept his self-serving story that in 2013, he suffered from depression and fits and owing to this, he lost his job in the BPO while getting monthly salary Rs. 14,700/-. It appears that he himself chose to leave that job for better prospects and/or some other reasons and had not lost it because of depression and/or fits as projected by him.
10. It may reasonably be assumed that even if the petitioner had been continuing on his previous job in BPO, his monthly salary would have considerably increased with the passage of time and that it would not be less than Rs. 22,411/- on 21.12.2020, when his minor daughter’s petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C was filed. It has been opined above that the petitioner left that job for better prospects and/or some other reasons and had not lost it because of depression and/or fits as projected by him. In such circumstances, his income at the time of filing of the maintenance petition by the daughter would have been not less than Rs. 22,411/- per month, if not considerably more than that.
11. It is not even the petitioner’s case that he is/was liable to maintain anyone else. Under the impugned order, the amount of monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- awarded against the petitioner in favour of his daughter (born on 20.08.2010) is just about 1/3rd of the petitioner’s assessed income of Rs. 22,411/-leaving the remaining nearly 2/3rd of the assessed income for his own personal expenses at the relevant time.
12. Considering the age of the minor daughter, her overall needs and requirements and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the impugned order awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- against the petitioner and in favour of his minor daughter.
13. It appears that the petitioner father is giving undue importance to himself by being a reckless and careless in providing for the maintenance of his minor daughter. I find no justifiable reasons for interfering with the impugned order and/or reduction in the monthly maintenance.
14. In the aforesaid premise, the petition is dismissed. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 acm