Revision petition challenging maintenance award for minor son. Court rejected challenge relying on petitioner's own deposition admitting son resided with wife.
The revision petition is disposed of against the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~73
ASHOK KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shikha Kaushik and Mr. Ritik Chandel, Advocates.
versus
BABY AANYA THROUGH HER MOTHER AND ORS
.....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State.
CORAM:
1 “BNSS”
2 “impugned order”
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 1 of 5
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 22/07/2025 at 12:11:45
differences, the parties have since separated. From this marriage, they have two children; a minor daughter (Respondent No. 1) and a minor son (Respondent No. 2), both of whom presently reside with Respondent No. 3. 3. Respondent No. 3 instituted a petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. However, during the course of the proceedings, certain averments and submissions prompted the Family Court to proceed on the footing that the minor son was also in the custody of Respondent No. 3. On that basis, maintenance was awarded in favour of all three Respondents. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:
3 “CrPC”
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 2 of 5
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 22/07/2025 at 12:11:45
draws attention on the ongoing custody proceedings, wherein the Petitioner has sought custody of the minor daughter (Respondent No. 1), while Respondent No. 3 has filed an application seeking custody of the minor son (Respondent No. 2). This, she submits, unequivocally establishes that Respondent No. 2 has remained in the Petitioner’s care.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 3 of 5
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 22/07/2025 at 12:11:45
The finding of the Family Court that Respondent No. 2 was residing with Respondent No. 3 was premised on Petitioner’s own deposition recorded during the proceedings. The relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:
“I am working in Delhi Police as a Head Constable. I joined my service on 25.05.2008. The annual educational expenses of son is around Rs.4,50,000/-. Since my separation, daughter is not residing with us. (Vol. In year 2018). I have not paid any amount apart from amount awarded by this court as ad-interim maintenance. Some times, I used to pay online as and when demanded by the daughter. At present, my son is residing with my wife. It is correct that son is residing with petitioner no.2 since December 2024. I am not paying any extra amount except awarded by this court to petitioner no.2 towards the expenses of son. (Vol. I used to spend money on son as and when he came and ask for purchase of something). It is correct I have not paid the tuition fee of the son since he is residing with petitioner no.2. I was posted in High Court Security when the petitioner no.2 filed the present petition. It is correct that I have purchased a flat bearing no. B-82, Third Floor back side, New Jankipuri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, It is wrong to suggest that I am residing in this flat along with lady Constable Reena Saroha. (Vol. In this flat my sister is residing). My parents are not residing in this property. It is correct that Reena Saroha is working with Delhi Police. It is correct that petition no.2 is residing with her parents and both children at her parental house. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”
[Emphasis supplied]
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 4 of 5
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 22/07/2025 at 12:11:45
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 18, 2025 d.negi
4 (2015) 5 SCC 705
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 320/2025 Page 5 of 5
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 22/07/2025 at 12:11:45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance for the minor son based on the petitioner's own admission of the child's residence with the respondent.
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the Family Court's assessment of the petitioner's financial capacity under Section 125 CrPC 1973.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid KhanRelied on¶44
(2015) 5 SCC 705 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Kumar
Baby Aanya
Respondent No. 3
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
