Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. Pragati @Madhu and Anr.

Delhi HC21 May 2024CRL.REV.P./208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition impugning an ex-parte order directing the petitioner to pay ₹50,000/- monthly maintenance. The Court set aside the order, remanded the matter to the Family Court for a de novo hearing, and directed the petitioner to pay ₹7,500/- per month pending the outcome, along with arrears.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Family Court for afresh consideration; petitioner directed to pay ₹7,500/- per month including arrears.

Sunil Kumar Vs Pragati @Madhu and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~89

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P. 208/2023

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Anil Basoya, Adv. & adv Akash Gahlot through V.C.

¶6

versus

¶7

PRAGATI @MADHU AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Dr. Anu Solanki, Adv. for R-1 along with father of R-1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 21.05.2024 1. The present petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the order dated 02.12.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Saket Courts, Delhi in M. No. 155/2021 titled as ‘ Pragati @ Madhu & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar’ under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ).

¶11

The learned Family Court by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹50,000/to the respondents, who are the wife and the minor child of the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed ex-parte . The learned Family Court noted that the averments made by the respondents have gone uncontroverted and unchallenged and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the respondents.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CRL.REV.P. 208/2023 Page 1 of 3

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 13:26:25

¶14

notice under Section 125 of the CrPC was not served. He submits that he had no reason to not appear since the parties have been litigating in various courts. He submits that prior to the impugned order, the learned Family Court in complaint case No. 1248/2021 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) after considering the arguments advanced by the parties and taking note of the salary slips of the petitioner, had awarded interim maintenance of ₹4,900/- per month. He submits that the order dated 10.10.2022 was not brought to the notice of the learned Family Court which led to passing of the impugned order.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte . It is also not in dispute that the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate has already passed an order under Section 12 of the DV Act and has granted a monthly maintenance of ₹4,900/- per month to the respondents. The said order was passed after considering the affidavits filed by the parties and hearing the arguments. The said order has not been challenged.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to address arguments before the learned Family Court in relation to proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC. He further submits that the petitioner has been directed to pay an interim maintenance of ₹7,500/- per month by this Court pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2023 and petitioner would continue paying the same till the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the CrPC is decided. 6. The petitioner has taken this Court through the salary slips which indicate that the monthly salary of the petitioner in January - February, 2022 was ₹16,000/- per month. The same was also taken note by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while CRL.REV.P. 208/2023 Page 2 of 3

¶17

¶18

deciding the application under Section 12 of the DV Act.

¶19

In view of the above, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the ad-interim monthly maintenance of ₹7,500/- is reasonable till such time the application for interim maintenance is decided by the learned Family Court under Section 125 of the CrPC.

¶20

The matter was admittedly heard ex-parte . Since the case relates to matrimonial dispute and the ad interim maintenance is being directed to be paid, this Court is of the opinion that the matter ought to be remanded back for consideration afresh.

¶21

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to continue paying ₹7,500/- per month to the respondents till order on maintenance / interim maintenance is passed by the learned Family Court. The petitioner is also directed to clear arrears from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, calculating the same at the rate of ₹7,500/- per month.

¶22

The learned Trial Court is directed to pass an order uninfluenced by any observations that may have been made by this Court in the present petition.

¶23

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶25

MAY 21, 2024 “SK”

¶26

CRL.REV.P. 208/2023

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

Sunil Kumar v. Pragati @Madhu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. Pragati @Madhu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahalinga Narayanan Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Sunny @ Manjeet Sehrawat Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Bhoodev Singh Vs State

Jitendra Singh Lunawat Vs State NCT of Delhi

Arshad Saifi Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ram Babu Vs State of NCT of Delhi