CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 $~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 MASTER ARYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar Mudgal, Mr. Sachin Dubey and Ms. Sanya Sud, Advocates. versus VIKAS KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prateek Tanwar and Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 30.04.2025 1. The Petitioner is a child (now adult) born from the marriage between Ms. Charul Malik, his mother and Mr. Vikas Kumar, his father. While both parents are financially well-placed, as assessed by the Family Court, the present proceedings concern the father’s legal obligation to support the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed this petition through his mother, seeking a revision of the maintenance awarded in his favour. 2. The marriage between Charul Malik and Vikas Kumar was solemnised on 14th January, 2001. Following irreconcilable differences, the parties amicably parted ways and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 16th May, 2007 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The custody of the child was entrusted to the mother, with the father This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/05/2025 at 15:17:40 CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 undertaking to bear his full maintenance and educational expenses. The relevant clause as agreed reads: “6. That the male issue out of this wedlock named Aryan who war born on 21.03.2002 at Chandigarh shall remain in the custody of his mother i.e. petitioner no.2 who is well educated. The petitioner No.1 shall have visiting right and may ask for the interim custody on suspicious occasion with the consent of petitioner No.2 and his maintenance in all respect shall be borne by the petitioner No.1 as per the Law, capacity, and status 30 that he may be looked after properly and he can get best possible education and his future prospectus may not be ignored due to lack of financial facilities.” (sic) 3. The afore-noted terms were accepted and incorporated in the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, thereby placing a binding obligation on the Respondent. 4. However, as the Respondent failed to honour the aforesaid undertaking, on 19th May, 2008, the Petitioner, through his mother, instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/-. The petition was subsequently amended to seek an enhanced sum of ₹40,000/- per month. 5. Initially, interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month was granted by order dated 1st June, 2010. However, upon a challenge by the Respondent, the Sessions Court, by order dated 4th August, 2010, reduced it to ₹10,000/- per month. 6. Following protracted proceedings, with both sides adducing evidence, the Family Court finally by order dated 28th March, 2019, nearly a decade after the petition was instituted, awarded maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month from the date of filing until 31st March, 2019, and ₹12,000/- per month thereafter, to continue until the Petitioner’s legal entitlement subsists. The Respondent was also directed to liquidate the accumulated arrears in This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/05/2025 at 15:17:40 CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 equal monthly instalments, within a period of three months from the date of the order. 7. The Petitioner now seeks enhancement of the maintenance awarded by the impugned order. The Petitioner contends that the sum awarded bears is the bare minimum to the actual cost of raising and educating a child, especially given the father’s financial standing. 8. At the outset, counsel for the Respondent submits that although some arrears remain outstanding, steps are being taken to clear them. That assurance, however, does not address the core issue before this Court. The present proceedings are not confined to questions of execution or compliance. What is under consideration is whether the amount awarded as monthly maintenance is commensurate with the needs of the child and reflective of the Respondent’s means, an inquiry that calls for closer scrutiny. 9. The Court has heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. As to the financial standing of the parties, there appears to be no real controversy. Based on the findings of the Family Court, Charul Malik was earning approximately ₹2.2 lakhs per month at the relevant time. The Respondent, Vikas Kumar, was employed as the Deputy General Manager (North Region) at Golf Technologies Private Limited, drawing a salary of ₹1.24 lakhs per month in 2010. This figure was reasonably projected to have increased to ₹2 lakhs per month by 2019, the year the impugned order was passed. These assessments, drawn from the evidentiary record, have not been seriously disputed and do not warrant reconsideration at this stage. 10. As to the Respondent’s liabilities, the Family Court took note of the This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/05/2025 at 15:17:40 CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 fact that he has since remarried and now supports a second family, including two children. While that additional responsibility was duly acknowledged, the Court nonetheless proceeded to fix maintenance for the Petitioner after assessing the overall status, earnings, and financial obligations of the parties. The operative portion of the Family Court’s direction is extracted below for ease of reference: “9. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, their earnings and liabilities, the respondent is directed to pay the maintenance to the petitioner Master Aryan @ Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition till 31.03.2019 and Rs. 12,000/- per month from 01.04.2019 till he is legally entitled to receive the same. The respondent/father is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within 3 months from today in equal instalments and to pay the monthly maintenance after the date of orders by way of money order or by deposit in the bank account of the petitioner on furnishing the account number of the same by or before 10th date of each calender month. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426. It is further made clear that as per settled Law, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive the maintenance to the highest amount the various allowances, if any, awarded to her by various courts.” 11. The Petitioner, through his mother, submits that the commitment made by the Respondent, both at the time of divorce has remained largely on paper. Except for what little has been paid under judicial orders, there has been no meaningful contribution by the Respondent towards Petitioner’s upbringing. The Court is informed that all expenses relating to the Petitioner’s education, health, travel and other developmental needs, amounting to approximately ₹25-30 lakhs over the years, have been shouldered entirely by the mother. In that context, it is argued that the monthly maintenance of ₹10,000, did not reflect the real cost of raising a child, particularly given the Respondent’s steady financial capacity. This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/05/2025 at 15:17:40 CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 12. This Court is conscious that both parents are financially capable individuals, and in an ideal circumstance, both would share the financial burden of raising the child. However, the legal framework under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. places a binding duty upon the father to provide for the maintenance of his child, especially when the child is in the sole custody of the mother and remains entirely dependent on her for upbringing. The fact that the mother is well-employed does not by itself absolve the father of his statutory obligation. Nor can the Respondent’s subsequent remarriage and the financial responsibilities arising from it be used to diminish the entitlement of the Petitioner, whose maintenance rights crystallised at the time of divorce and were explicitly acknowledged by the Respondent in the consent terms. 13. The record indicates that the Respondent was earning ₹1.24 lakhs per month in 2010 and that his income had risen to ₹2 lakhs per month by 2019. Given this steady financial trajectory, and having regard to the holistic needs of the Petitioner, spanning education, medical care, recreation, travel, and extracurricular development, the monthly award of ₹10,000 is manifestly inadequate. In the considered view of this Court, the maintenance must be adjusted in a manner that aligns with the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the parents not separated. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The maintenance amount awarded to the Petitioner is enhanced, and it is directed that the Respondent shall pay ₹12,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till 31st March, 2019, and thereafter, an ₹14,000/- per month from 1st April, 2019 until such time as the Petitioner remains legally entitled to receive maintenance. These amounts shall be remitted to the bank account of the This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/05/2025 at 15:17:40 CRL.REV.P. 795/2019 Petitioner’s mother, which shall be furnished to the Respondent within one week. Arrears arising from this re-computation shall be cleared by the Respondent within six months from the date of this order, in equal monthly instalments. 15. With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 30, 2025 nk This is a digitally signed order. 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 03/05/2025 at 15:17:40