Dismissed¶15

Pramod v. Karishma

Delhi HC20 Nov 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 19 Family Court Act, 1984; able-bodied husband liable to maintain wife; quantum of maintenance not excessive; ad interim maintenance Rs.10,000/- per month; husband's claim of unemployment rejected; MAT.APP.(F.C.) Delhi High Court; Family Court Patiala House Courts; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appellant-husband is an able-bodied person and is required to maintain his wife. ¶13

Pramod Vs Karishma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 397/2025, CM APPL. 70365/2025 (stay), CM APPL. 70366/2025 (Ex. from filing certified copies of Annexures–B & C) & CM APPL. 70367/2025 (60 days delay in filing appeal)

¶4

PRAMOD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Advocate (Appearance not given). versus KARISHMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Mohan Sharma and Mr. Amit Thakur, Advocates.

¶5

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

¶6

O R D E R % 20.11.2025

¶7

The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, assails the Order dated 31.07.2025¹ passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in case bearing HMA No.319/2024, titled as “ Pramod v. Karishma ”.

¶8

Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Family Court, after considering that the Appellant-husband has a credit of Rs.28 Lakhs in his bank account in Punjab National Bank, proceeded to award ad interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to Respondent-wife.

¶9

1 Impuged Order

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 24/11/2025 at 11:51:33

¶12

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant– husband is not working anywhere and is merely assisting his father, who is a priest at the Hanuman Mandir in Inder Puri.

¶13

This Court is of the considered opinion that Appellant is an able-bodied person, and he is required to maintain his wife.

¶14

The amount awarded by the learned Family Court is not excessive. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the Impugned Order.

¶15

Accordingly, the present Appeal, along with pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.

¶16

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J .

¶17

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J . NOVEMBER 20, 2025 /rk/kr/her

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 24/11/2025 at 11:51:33

Pramod v. Karishma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod v. Karishma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Arora Vs Sachin Arora

Smt. Shivani Vs Praveen Kumar

Pooja Sharma Vs Sanjeev Tyagi

Babita Garg Vs Kapil Garg

Prakriti Sharma Vs Yashodhar Sharma

Sh. Pawan Singh Negi Vs Smt. Bhawana Bhakuni

Prakriti Sharma Vs Yashodhar Sharma

Sonali Jain Vs Dheeraj Chauhan & Anr.

K C Palanisamy Vs Canara Bank & Ors.

Manash Sarkar & Ors. Vs Shukla Sarkar

Manju Arora Vs Sachin Arora

M/S Wiretel Solution Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S Annu Infra Construct India Pvt. Ltd. through Managing Director

All India Institute of Medical Science Vs Dr. Snajay Kumar Yadav & Ors.

Sonali Jain Vs Dheeraj Chauhan & Anr.