$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 392/2026 and CRL.M.A. 21561/2026 SACHIN KUMAR .....Revisionist. Through: Mr. R K Vats and Ms Kumari Alka, Advocates. versus RAKHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. The present petition assails the order dated 08.04.2026 [“Impugned Order”], passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Family Court") under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“C.r.P.C”],whereby, maintenance was awarded to respondent No. 1 (wife) at the rate of ₹5,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of the application. 2. The Family Court has also awarded maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month to the minor daughter. Learned counsel for the revisionist, however, does not challenge that part of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the respondent-wife is highly educated and was employed as a teacher at Nanki Public School. 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 30/07/2026 at 14:43:07 According to him, she voluntarily resigned from her employment after the rejection of her application for interim maintenance and is, therefore, not entitled to claim maintenance. 4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the affidavit filed by the revisionist by way of evidence. According to him, the affidavit specifically states that the respondent-wife is a graduate and was employed as a teacher at Nanki Public School, Sangam Vihar, having a branch at Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, where she was earning ₹28,000/- per month. He further submits that there was no cross-examination on the aforesaid assertion. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order suffers from material perversity and deserves to be set aside. 5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and has perused the record. 6. It remains undisputed that, as on date, there is no evidence on record to establish that the respondent-wife is gainfully employed. It is also not disputed that she has left her teaching employment. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has emphasised that the respondent-wife deliberately left her employment with a view to claiming maintenance and that the said circumstance ought to have been duly considered by the Family Court. However, this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid contention. The Supreme Court, in Pyla Mutyalamma alias Satyavathi v. Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr.,1 has held as under: 15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It 1 (2011) 12 SCC 189. 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 30/07/2026 at 14:43:07 has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 that in a case where the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The Revisional Court would not substitute its own finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate. [Emphasis Supplied] 8. In the present scenario, the contention advanced by the revisionist would require this Court to reappreciate the evidence appreciated by the Family Court and substitute a different conclusion on the factual aspects relating to the respondent-wife's employment and earning capacity. Such an exercise falls beyond the permissible scope of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, this Court will not engage in such an exercise. 9. Even otherwise, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court to the respondent-wife at the rate of ₹5,000/- per month is reasonable and does not warrant any interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition, along with pending application, stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 23, 2026 Aks/ss 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 30/07/2026 at 14:43:07