THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: April 28 v. Versus MS. NEETA SINGH & Ors.

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/ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 177/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:20.05.2026 04:58:38 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 and 3. 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 The learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.1 had voluntarily/ willingly withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any justified cause/ reason, even though the petitioner tried reconciling the differences with her.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 bachelor CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 177/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:20.05.2026 04:58:38 degree 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 petition. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents and pleadings on record. 8. At the outset, relying upon the trite law as per Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.1 and Pyla Mutyalamma vs. Pyla Suri Demudu2, this Court reiterates that the scope of interference in a revisional jurisdiction, in the impugned judgment herein is extremely limited. For this, the petitioner ought to be able to make out a case and/ or show that there is some perverseness and/ or illegality therein, and which actually