Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs Poonam Sharma on 6 May, 2026
* I N T H E H I G H CO U RT O F DE L H I AT NE W DE L H I
Reserved on: April 24, 2026
% Pronounced on: May 06, 2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 & CRL.M.As. 10288/2018, 33983/2019
SH. RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Madhumita Kothari, Advocate
(Through VC)
Versus
SMT. POONAM SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Indu Kaul, Mr. Abhishekh Sahu
and Mr. Vijender, Advocates Ms. Nidhi
Mohan Parashar, Amicus Curiae with
Mr. Vikrant Kumar and Mr. Amar
Bajpayee, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731, the petitioner/ husband seeks setting aside of the
order dated 27.02.20182 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi3 in M. No.27/2012 whereby the respondent/
wife has been held entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month under
Section 125 CrPC to be paid by the petitioner till she is alive/ gets remarried,
1
Hereinafter ‘CrPC‘
2
Hereinafter ‘impugned order’
3
Hereinafter ‘Family Court’
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
along with directions to the petitioner to clear the arrears as also to deposit an
amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Succinctly put, marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnised on 26.05.2009 at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh as per Hindu rites
and ceremonies, whereafter the parties cohabited in the respondent’s house in
New Delhi, albeit their relations turned sour soon after. As per respondent,
the petitioner started misbehaving with her, assaulting her every day and beat
her repeatedly in December 2009 as well as January 2010, whereafter the
petitioner shifted to her mother’s house. However, since she did not have any
means to sustain herself, as her father had expired and she was wholly
dependent upon her mother and her brother, she filed a petition seeking
maintenance wherein the impugned order has been passed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein primarily submitted that the
impugned order has been passed erroneously, inasmuch as it did not
appreciate the respondent’s admission qua her already being married before
marrying to the petitioner, as also she had not been granted divorce from her
first husband. Based thereon, the learned counsel submitted that since the
respondent did not disclose the same in her maintenance petition before the
learned Family Court, as also the earlier maintenance petition filed by her
against her first husband and her application for restoration of the divorce
petition against the first husband wherein she described herself as the wife of
the first husband, the respondent did not approach the Court with clean
hands, and hence, no relief could have been granted to her, more so since the
respondent was not legally wedded ‘wife’ of the petitioner under Section 125
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
CrPC. The learned counsel also submitted that false assertions were made by
the respondent in her petition, as the petitioner did not commit any act(s) of
cruelty against her, but it was rather the respondent who displayed intolerable
and abnormal behaviour towards the petitioner and is also medically unfit to
conceive a child.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Family Court
committed an error while passing the impugned order as it did not have the
territorial jurisdictional to try and/ or entertain the same, since marriage
between the parties was solemnised at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Lastly,
the learned counsel submitted that the learned Family Court arrived at the
figure of Rs.3,000/- without any basis and/ or consideration that the petitioner
was currently unemployed and did not have a source of income, as also the
averments qua the petitioner having 3 bighas land with accommodation of 6
to 7 rooms were unfounded in any evidence.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted
that the present petition has been filed with a delay of over 60 days without
seeking condonation thereof, and as such, the same is not maintainable. Even
otherwise, since the petitioner chose not to lead any evidence before the
learned Family Court, the contentions sought to be urged by him before this
Court cannot be permitted, especially since the learned Family Court has
considered all relevant factors and then passed the impugned order granting
maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent, who was
forcefully removed from her matrimonial home and does not have any other
means to sustain herself, and the same ought not to be interfered with.
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
6. On merits, learned counsel submitted that all allegations qua the
respondent not being the ‘wife’ of the petitioner under Section 125 CrPC are
completely farcical, especially, when the learned Family Court after
considering that the respondent had only resided with her first husband for
one month whereafter she had not seen him for 12 years and holding that
there was a presumption that he had since deceased, has already decided the
said issue. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner as also
every other villager were well aware of the same, and hence their marriage
was solemnised in front of 100-200 people openly. In any event, the learned
counsel relied upon the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr.4, Chanmuniya vs.
Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwana & Anr.5 and Badshah vs. Sou Urmila
Badshah Godse & Anr.6 to submit that the term ‘wife’ under Section 125
CrPC is not to be given a strict interpretation and should be construed
liberally in order to achieve the objective thereof.
7. Learned amicus curiae, relying upon Chanmuniya (supra), also
submitted in support of a liberal construction of Section 125 CrPC and
referred to Badshah (supra) and N. Usha Rani & Anr. vs. Moodudula
Srinivas7 to submit that provisions qua maintenance are social-welfare
oriented, and even in cases of a void marriage, the same may be invoked for
granting the relief. She also relied upon Pyla Mutyalamma vs. Pyla Suri
4
[1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R,
5
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 223
6
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 259
7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 225
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
Demudu8 to submit that this Court ought to exercise restraint while
adjudicating a revision petition, especially against an order granting
maintenance to the wife, and not interfere therewith unless there is any
illegality or material irregularity, and does not have the power to re-evaluate
the evidence on record to arrive at fresh findings.
8. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties as well as learned
amicus curiae and carefully perused the pleadings and materials on record
along with the judgements cited at Bar.
9. Regarding challenge to the impugned order on the aspect of the
territorial jurisdiction of the learned Family Court as well as the first
marriage of the respondent, this Court finds that the same have been duly
addressed by the learned Family Court with cogent reasonings and analysis,
and that too after detailed consideration of the pleadings and contentions
raised before it and the evidence led by the respondent, whilst the petitioner,
who was though duly served before the learned Family Court, chose to never
lead any evidence before the learned Family Court.
10. Similarly, the question whether or not the respondent was the ‘wife’ of
the petitioner under Section 125 CrPC, once again, the learned Family Court
vide the well-reasoned impugned order has categorically recorded that though
there was no formal decree of divorce from her first husband, the respondent
was able to substantiate that she resided with the first husband only for one
month whereafter he was absconding and she had no contact with him for 12
years, as also that the petitioner was fully aware about the same. Hence,
8
(2011) 12 SCC 189
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
when the marriage of the parties and their cohabitation as husband and wife
were admitted, the respondent was a ‘wife’ within the meaning of Section 125
CrPC. Again, where there is no dispute that the petitioner never led any
evidence qua the same before the learned Family Court, there is no need for a
fresh adjudication thereof by this Court.
11. In any event, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Captain Ramesh Chander
Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal9; Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K)10; Dwarika
Prasad Satpathy (supra); Chanmuniya (supra); Badshah (supra) has time
and again reiterated that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice
especially enacted with the objective to protect women from vagrancy and/ or
destitution and hence, as victims of the social environment, their rights
cannot be defeated by strict construction of beneficial provisions. In fact,
recently in N. Usha Rani & Anr. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court even
upheld the right of the wife therein to claim maintenance from her second
marriage though no formal decree of divorce was passed in her first marriage,
considering that the husband therein was unable to prove that he was unaware
of the said prior marriage, once again holding that the term ‘wife’ under
Section 125 CrPC does not warrant strict construction, being a beneficial
measure to secure the rights of a dependant woman and for her financial and
social protection.
12. In view of the afore-going, and particularly since the petitioner has not
been able to point out any perversity/ illegality/ irregularity/ patent error/
9
(1978) 4 SCC 70
10
(1991) 2 SCC 375
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
perversity/ arbitrariness in the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by
the learned Family Court, that too in a petition of the present nature wherein
the scope of interference by this Court is itself limited [Amit Kapoor vs.
Ramesh Chander & Anr.11, Pyla Mutyalamma (supra)], this Court does not
see any reason for interfering with the impugned order.
13. Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending applications is
dismissed.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MAY 06, 2026
Ab/RS
11
(2012) 9 SCC 460
CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 Page 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:06.05.2026
06:03:12
[ad_1]
Source link
