SHIVANI vs PARVEEN KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~37 & 38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 10, 2025 + CRL.REV.P. 612/2023 SHIVANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ram Naresh, Adv. versus PARVEEN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghav Anthwal, Adv. + CRL.REV.P. 613/2023 PUSHPA DEVI & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ram Naresh, Adv. versus PARVEEN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghav Anthwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petitions have been filed under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking modification of the impugned orders dated 30.09.2022 passed in MT No. 349/ 2020 and MT No. 350/2020 (hereinafter ‘impugned orders’) passed by the learned Family Court and enhancement of the interim maintenance awarded. 2. In CRL. REV P. 613/2023, Petitioner No. 1/Smt. Pushpa Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.REV.P. 612/2023 & CRL.REV.P. 613/2023 Page 1 of 5 KAUR Signing Date:12.12.2025 18:02:21 Devi is the wife of Respondent/Praveen Kumar and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are their younger daughters. In CRL. REV P. 612/2023, Petitioner/Shivani is the elder daughter of the Respondent. 3. By the impugned orders, interim maintenance in the sum of ₹8,000/– per month, was awarded to each Petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the learned Family Court has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the Petitioner and has wrongly permitted deductions towards HRA. He submits only statutory deductions such as income tax and EPF were liable to be deducted. 5. He further submits that the Respondent’s mother has substantial bank deposits and is receiving old-age pension, and therefore, she could not have been treated as a dependent. 6. He further submits