Dismissed¶15

Sh. Naresh Kumar v. Smt. Archana & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/402/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; MAT.APP.(F.C.) 402/2025 & CM APPL. 71191/2025 (exp); appeal under Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984, dismissed 14.11.2025; husband's challenge to Family Court maintenance-enhancement order (28.08.2025; MT. No. 411/2018) fails; Metropolitan Magistrate (Tiz Hazari) Order 16.05.2011 fixed Rs. 3000/- wife / Rs. 2000/- daughter, raised to Rs. 5000/- each; rationale: Respondents resident in Faridabad, NCR, high cost of living, award bare minimum; no precedents cited; coram Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ; appellant Naresh Kumar (counsel Sumit Kumar Khatri), respondents Archana & Anr. (Nemo).

What did the court decide?

The Respondents are living in Faridabad, which is in the National Capital Region (NCR). ¶12

Sh. Naresh Kumar Vs Smt. Archana & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 402/2025 & CM APPL. 71191/2025 (exp)

¶4

SH. NARESH KUMAR .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

SMT. ARCHANA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Nemo

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R % 14.11.2025

¶10

The present Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking to set aside the Impugned Order dated 28.08.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Tis Hazari Courts, District North, Delhi in MT. No. 411/2018. By way of the Impugned Order, the monthly maintenance awarded to the Respondents was modified and increased.

¶11

The learned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tiz Hazari, Delhi, vide its Order dated 16.05.2011, had awarded monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs. 3000/- to the wife and Rs. 2000/- to the daughter. The said amounts stood increased to Rs. 5000/- each by way of the Impugned Order passed by the learned Family Court.

¶12

Since the Respondents are living in Faridabad, which is in the National Capital Region [“ NCR ”], and being a commercial city, the cost of living in the NCR is very high, the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is bare minimum. Hence, we find no ground to

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 19/11/2025 at 12:41:50

¶15

interfere with the Impugned Order. Accordingly, the present Appeal stands dismissed.

¶16

The present Appeal, along with pending application(s), shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶17

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J .

¶18

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J . NOVEMBER 14, 2025 /rk/va

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 19/11/2025 at 12:41:50

Sh. Naresh Kumar v. Smt. Archana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Naresh Kumar v. Smt. Archana & Anr.

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

Miss Pahal Giya (through Her Mother, Mrs. Sapna Giya) Vs Deepak Giya

Anupreet Gulati Vs Gurpreet Singh Gulati

Nisha Malik Vs Jitendra Kumar Kuhar

Nidhi Khandelwal Vs Pankaj Khandelwal

Sunil Kumar Vs Mahima

Shikha Jain Vs Siddharth Jain

Jyoti Bhatia Vs Amit Kumar

Gautam Mehra Vs Sonia Mehar

Meenakshi Malhotra Vs G.L. Tandon (Since Deceased through Lrs) & Ors.

Smt Meenakshi Oberg Vs Sh. Karun Dube & Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs M/S Motorola & Inc.

Mujahat Ali Khan Vs Lokpal of India through Under Secretary

Jamia Hamdard (Deemed to Be University) Vs Asad Mueed & Ors.

Sugandha Gupta Vs Amit Gupta