SAPNA GIYA vs DEEPAK GIYA

Judgment text excerpt

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29.08.2025 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 186/2019, CM APPL. 33870/2024, CM APPL. 56493/2024 & CM APPL. 56802/2024 SAPNA GIYA .....Appellant Through: Ms. Payal Chawla, Adv. with Appellant in person versus DEEPAK GIYA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant (Respondent’s wife) prays for setting aside the Order dated 10.04.2019, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, West District, Family Courts, Tis Hazari, Delhi, while declining to grant her maintenance pendente lite, but granted Rs. 25,000/- per month for the minor child, who was of 09 years (approx.) of age on the date of the said order. 2. The parties were married in the year 2009. Prior to marriage, the Appellant worked for merely three and a half years. Further, she migrated to Singapore, where she worked for some time. However, she did not work after giving birth to the daughter in the year 2011. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA MAT.APP.(F.C.) 186/2019 Page 1 of 3 PASRICHA Signing Date:04.09.2025 18:51:28 Merely, after four months of the birth of the child, she returned to India. The Respondent at the relevant time was working in Singapore earning in Singapore Dollars, which is equivalent to Rs. 10 lakhs per month (approx.). 3. In the impugned order, the Family Court has concluded that the Appellant is not entitled to maintenance because she does not want to work. The Family Court has further held that the Appellant is a Post Graduate Diploma holder in Business Administration and capable of working, hence she is not entitled to maintenance. 4. Such conclusion drawn