The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the husband under Section 401 CrPC challenging the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in M. No.27/2012, whereby the wife was held entitled to maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC along with directions to clear arrears and pay Rs.11,000 as litigation expenses. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, in the judgment pronounced on 06.05.2026 (reserved on 24.04.2026) in CRL.REV.P. 485/2018, held that the Family Court had rightly granted maintenance after detailed consideration of the facts and evidence, and there was no perversity, illegality or irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.05.2009 at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh as per Hindu rites, after which they cohabited in Delhi. The wife alleged cruelty and desertion, while the husband contested her status as a legally wedded wife on the ground that she had a prior marriage without a formal divorce decree. The Family Court, after considering that the wife had resided with her first husband for only one month and had no contact with him for 12 years, raised a presumption of his death and noted that the petitioner-husband was fully aware of the facts at the time of marriage, which was solemnized openly in the presence of 100-200 people. The petitioner did not lead any evidence before the Family Court despite due service.
The High Court observed that the Family Court had duly addressed the issues of territorial jurisdiction and the wife’s status as a ‘wife’ under Section 125 CrPC with cogent reasoning. It reiterated the consistent view of the Supreme Court in cases such as Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit, Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, Badshah vs. Sou Urmila Badshah Godse, and recently in N. Usha Rani & Anr. vs. Moodudula Srinivas that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision of social justice aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution of women. The term ‘wife’ must receive a liberal and wide interpretation and cannot be defeated by strict construction, particularly where the parties have cohabited as husband and wife and the husband was aware of the prior marriage. The Court emphasized that the provision protects dependent women as victims of social environment, and even in cases of void or irregular marriages, maintenance can be granted to achieve its objective.
The High Court further noted that the petitioner failed to point out any material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order, especially since he chose not to lead evidence before the Family Court. In revision, the Court exercises limited jurisdiction and cannot re-appreciate evidence to arrive at fresh findings unless there is patent error. The quantum of Rs.3,000 per month was found reasonable considering the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the revision petition along with pending applications was dismissed.
Case Details:
Title: RK Versus PS
Citation: 2026:DHC:3870
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 485/2018 & CRL.M.As. 10288/2018, 33983/2019
Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date of Judgment: 06.05.2026 (Reserved on 24.04.2026)
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 