RAJ KUMAR vs STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 02, 2025 + CRL.REV.P. 568/2023 & CRL.M.A. 13650/2023 RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. B.K. Mishra and Mr. Tushar Mishra, Advs. versus STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State Mr. I.N. Thakur, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act 1984, read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.03.2023 (‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Family Court, in CC No. 276/ 2017, titled “Smt. Pragya Suman v. Sh. Raj Kumar”. 2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Family Court directed the Petitioner/ Husband to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 2/Wife. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.REV.P. 568/2023 Page 1 of 7 KAUR Signing Date:05.12.2025 13:13:35 learned Family Court has incorrectly assessed the income of the Petitioner as Rs. 95,000/- per month, without considering the salary slips placed on record which reflected his income as only Rs. 47,000/- per month and without considering that he also has to pay EMIs of loans and LIC renewal fees, house rent etc. etc. 4. He further submits that the Respondent No. 2 is capable of earning and is more qualified that the Petitioner herein. 5. He further submits that the Respondent No. 2 is guilty of adultery and hence, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr. PC. 6. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order an