Dismissed¶32

Vikash Chaudhary v. Meenakshi

Delhi HC23 Jul 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/329/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance enhancement appeal; Family Court maintenance Rs.16,000/- per month for wife and two children; appellant's claimed income Rs.20,000/- per month; employer's certificate not accepted as correct; minimum wages comparison; respondent failed to produce documents despite repeated opportunities; appeal dismissed with liberty to seek revision/enhancement of maintenance before Family Court; pending applications disposed; no stay of execution petition; Delhi High Court 2025; MAT.APP.(F.C.) 329/2019.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Respondent to file an application for revision or enhancement of amount of maintenance before the Family Court; all pending applications disposed of. ¶32

Vikash Chaudhary Vs Meenakshi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the Respondent to file an application for revision or enhancement of amount of maintenance before the Family Court; all pending applications disposed of.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance of Rs.16,000/- per month fixed by the Family Court for the respondent/wife and the two children was inadequate and should be enhanced.

¶28

Court's answer

The Court declined to accept as correct the employer's certificate (Annexure P-3 colly) showing the appellant's gross salary as Rs.20,000/- per month, noting that even the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in Delhi are in the same range.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Respondent failed to produce any document despite repeated opportunities.

¶31

Key takeaways

Pendency of the appeal would not be a ground for the appellant to seek a stay of any execution petition; the Family Court was left at liberty to proceed with the execution petition to its logical conclusion.obiter¶24
The appeal had been entertained only with a view to enhancing the amount of maintenance, the Hon'ble Bench having felt the amount awarded insufficient.obiter¶28
The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the Respondent to file an application for revision or enhancement of the amount of maintenance before the Family Court; all pending applications are disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 329/2019 (order dated 23.07.2025, Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.): Husband's appeal against the Family Court order dated 18.7.2019 directing payment of Rs.16,000/- per month as maintenance for the wife and the two children in her custody. By order dated 18.12.2019 the appeal was entertained only with a view to enhancing the maintenance, notice to show cause was issued to the husband, the employer's certificate showing gross salary of Rs.20,000/- per month was not accepted as correct (being in the range of minimum wages for unskilled labour in Delhi), and it was made clear that pendency of the appeal would not justify a stay of any execution petition. In the final order, the Respondent having failed to produce any document despite repeated opportunities, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Respondent to file an application for revision or enhancement of maintenance before the Family Court; all pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 329/2019, CM APPL. 54351/2019 (Stay), CM APPL. 54353/2019 (Delay of 122 days in filing the appeal)

¶4

.....Appellant

¶5

VIKASH CHAUDHARY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankur Dhall, Mr. Shubham Patel, Mr. Kuldeep Shukla and Mr. B.P. Pandey, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

MEENAKSHI .....Respondent Through: Counsel (appearance not given) Respondent in person

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 23.07.2025

¶12

On 18.12.2019, the following order was passed:-

¶13

The appellant/husband is aggrieved by an order dated 18.7.2019, passed by the learned Family Court disposing of an application filed by the respondent/wife claiming maintenance for herself and two children of the parties aged three and one years old respectively, who are in her care and custody.

¶14

In the impugned order, while recording that the appellant/husband, who is 30 years old and a qualified BBA and MBA has not filed any document to show the proof of his income and he claims that he is earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as a Marketing Manager at the Family Care Nursing Home, the Family Court has directed him to pay a total sum of Rs.16,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent and the two children.

¶15

We may further record that the present appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay of 122 days. The reason to explain the delay is that the appellant elected to file an application, seeking review of the order dated 18.7.2019, which

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 25/07/2025 at 12:08:00

¶18

was dismissed as meritless by the learned Family Court on 22.10.2019.

¶19

On enquiring from learned counsel for the appellant/husband as to whether he has paid any amount to the respondent/wife from 18.7.2019 onwards, the answer is in the negative. In other words, despite the fact that no interim order has been operating in favour of the appellant/husband in all this duration, he has not complied with the said order till date.

¶20

As for the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/husband that he has placed on record a Certificate dated 21.10.2019 issued by his employer, namely, Family Care Nursing Home [Annexure P-3 (colly)] on a perusal of the same, it transpires that the gross salary of the appellant has been mentioned as Rs.20,000/- per month. We may note that even the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour in Delhi, fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, is in the same range. We are therefore not inclined to accept the said Certificate purportedly issued by the appellant’s employer, as correct.

¶21

It is deemed appropriate to issue notice to show cause the appellant/husband calling upon him to state why the maintenance fixed by the Family Court and payable to the respondent and the two children in her care, should not be enhanced.

¶22

Issue notice.

¶23

The appellant/husband, who is present in court, accepts notice. Reply be filed within two weeks.

¶24

It is made clear that the pendency of this appeal will not be a ground for the appellant to seek a stay of the execution petition, if any, filed by the respondent/wife for implementation of the impugned order. The Family Court shall be at liberty to proceed in the execution petition and take it to its logical conclusion.

¶25

List on 13.2.2020.

¶26

A copy of this order be sent by the Registry forthwith to the learned Family Court for information.

¶27

The Family Court had directed the Appellant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 16,000/- per month.

¶28

It is evident from the reproduced order that the appeal was entertained only with a view to enhance the amount of maintenance as the Hon’ble Bench felt that the amount awarded is insufficient.

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 25/07/2025 at 12:08:00

¶31

However, the Respondent has failed to produce any document despite repeated opportunities.

¶32

Hence, the present appeal is dismissed with liberty to the Respondent to file an application for revision or enhancement of amount of maintenance before the Family Court. All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶33

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶34

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶35

JULY 23, 2025 /sp/sh

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 25/07/2025 at 12:08:00

Vikash Chaudhary v. Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Chaudhary v. Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Tewari Vs Umang Tewari & Anr.

Harpreet Singh Vs Amanpreet Kaur

Tarun Upadhyay Vs Rashi Upadhyay

Mohd. Ajmal Vs Sultana

Tarun Tandon Vs Vandana Tandon

Smt. Madhu Bala Vs Shri Nafay Singh

Pankaj Jain Vs Parul Jain

Wg. Cdr. Manish Mahajan Vs Parul Mahajan

Pooja Tewari Vs Umang Tewari & Anr.

Nicco Uco Alliance Credit Limited Vs Tommorrowland Limited

Harpreet Singh Vs Amanpreet Kaur

Sanjay Vs Keshav Raj Pandey and Anr.

Vantage Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Neiproperties Ltd. & Ors.

Mahesh Bhati Vs Union of India & Ors.