Dismissed¶20

Aparna Monga v. Rahul Kapoor

Delhi HC6 Nov 2025CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/478/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC; Amit Mahajan, J; CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 478/2025; interim maintenance refused upheld; Family Court Karkardooma Shahdara; Mt. Case 1351/2024; petitioner PhD-qualified contractual teacher DPS Faridabad salary Rs. 60,000/- pm; income adequate for maintenance; no interference with impugned order; revision dismissed; petitioner free to seek higher maintenance at final stage; pending application disposed.

What did the court decide?

This Court agrees with the learned Family Court that the petitioner is qualified and at present earning an income which is adequate for her maintenance, and therefore sees no ground for granting her further interim maintenance. ¶16

Aparna Monga Vs Rahul Kapoor — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 478/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32589/2025

¶4

APARNA MONGA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nadeem Hussain, Adv. (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

RAHUL KAPOOR .....Respondent

¶7

Through:

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 06.11.2025

¶9

The present petition is filed against the order dated 31.07.2025 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the learned Family Court, Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi in Mt. CASE No./1351/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim maintenance was dismissed.

¶10

The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, noted that the petitioner, having completed her PhD, is highly qualified and at present is earning a salary of ₹60,000/month by working as a contractual teacher at DPS Faridabad. It was noted that the bank statement of the petitioner contained certain monthly entries which fell under the head of salary. Consequently, the learned Family Court considering that the petitioner is working and earning an income which is adequate as per her needs, noted that the case of the petitioner is not fit for grant of interim maintenance.

¶11

The petitioner is essentially not satisfied with the impugned order and submits that she requires more amount for

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 11/11/2025 at 14:51:35

¶14

her maintenance.

¶15

The petitioner has not disputed the fact that she is presently working as a teacher in DPS, Faridabad and is getting a salary of ₹60,000/- per month. The petitioner has however not pointed out why more amount is required for her maintenance.

¶16

In such circumstances, this Court finds itself in agreement with the learned Family Court that the petitioner is qualified and at present, is also earning an income which is adequate for her maintenance.

¶17

Concededly, the impugned order is only an order of interim maintenance and the matter is still pending before the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court would pass a final order in regard to the maintenance after the parties have led their evidence.

¶18

The petitioner is at liberty to lead evidence before the learned Family Court in support of her contention that more amount is required for her maintenance for which the respondent should be directed to pay her.

¶19

In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶20

The present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶21

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶22

NOVEMBER 6, 2025 ‘KDK’

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 11/11/2025 at 14:51:35

Aparna Monga v. Rahul Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparna Monga v. Rahul Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puneet Verma and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Aakashdeep and Otheres Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anothers

M/S Ipjacket Technology India Private Ltd. Vs M/S Netlab Solutions (India) Private Limited

Surender Singh & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Kasana Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manish Gupta Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.