CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 1 of 25

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 11.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 04.02.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 04.02.2026

+ CRL.REV.P. 950/2017

PREETI SHARMA .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Ankita Patnaik

(DHCLSC)

versus

ANUJ SHARMA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. K.S. Singh, Ms. Tripta

Negi Singh, Ms. Ayushi Jain

and Ms. Divyanshi Singh,

Advocates.

+ CRL.REV.P. 295/2021

PREETI SHARMA .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Ankita Patnaik

(DHCLSC)

versus

ANUJ SHARMA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. K.S. Singh, Ms. Tripta

Negi Singh, Ms. Ayushi Jain

and Ms. Divyanshi Singh,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 2 of 25

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the revision petition bearing no. 950/2017, the

petitioner (divorced wife of the respondent) is seeking setting aside of

the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2017, passed by the learned

Principal Judge, Family Courts, East District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi

[hereafter „Family Court‟], in CC No. 148/2014; and by way of

revision petition bearing no. 295/2021, she seeks setting aside of the

judgment dated 06.04.2021 passed in Ex/CRL. 375/2018 in CC No.

148/2014.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the

petitioner was married to the respondent on 09.02.1999. According to

the petitioner, soon after the marriage, she was subjected to

harassment by the respondent and his family members. In these

circumstances, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], being MP

No. 416A/2003. Vide order dated 23.10.2004, the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, East District, Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi awarded maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month to the

petitioner. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions

Court, and in Criminal Revision No. 09/2005, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, vide consent order dated 21.09.2005, enhanced the

maintenance from ₹3,000/- to ₹6,000/- per month with effect from

the date of the order, i.e., 21.09.2005.

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 3 of 25

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition bearing No. 214/07

under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking further enhancement of

maintenance on the ground of change in circumstances.

4. In the meantime, in the year 2006, the respondent filed a

petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being HMA No.

187/2006, titled Anuj Sharma v. Preeti Sharma, seeking dissolution

of marriage under Sections 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(iii) and 13(1)(i-b) of the

Act, on the grounds of cruelty, insanity and desertion. During the

pendency of the said proceedings, this Court, vide order dated

11.05.2007 passed in CMM(M) No. 127/2007, appointed the mother

of the petitioner as her guardian for the limited purpose of filing the

written statement in the divorce proceedings, keeping in view the

allegation of insanity levelled against the petitioner by the

respondent. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 10.01.2008 passed in

HMA No. 187/2006, the learned Court allowed the petition and

granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent on the

grounds of cruelty and insanity. The petitioner challenged the said

judgment by way of MAT Appeal No. 77/2008. During the pendency

of the appeal, the respondent remarried in the year 2008, and a

daughter was born from the said wedlock in the year 2011.

Eventually, MAT Appeal No. 77/2008 was dismissed for non-

prosecution by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

16.12.2014, as a result of which the decree of divorce attained

finality.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner‟s earlier petition under Section

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 4 of 25

127 of the Cr.P.C. (Petition No. 214/07) came to be dismissed by the

learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.11.2010 on the ground that it

was not maintainable, as it had been filed by the mother of the

petitioner on her behalf. The learned Magistrate observed that

reliance placed on the order dated 11.05.2007 passed in CMM(M)

No. 127/2007 was misplaced, as the said order was limited to the

proceedings arising out of HMA No. 187/2006. While dismissing the

petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in

her own name on the same cause of action.

6. Pursuant thereto, in January 2011, the petitioner filed a fresh

petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., registered as CC No.

148/2014, seeking enhancement of maintenance from ₹6,000/- per

month to ₹1,20,000/- per month.

7. The said petition was decided by the Family Court vide the

impugned judgment dated 12.07.2017, whereby the respondent was

directed to pay enhanced maintenance of ₹9,000/- per month from the

date of filing of the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., i.e.,

13.01.2011, till the date of the passing of order, and further directed

to pay future maintenance in the sum of ₹15,000/- per month from

the date of the order, for so long as the petitioner remains entitled to

receive the same. It was concluded as under:

“...Keeping in view the cost of living as compared to the year

2005 when the maintenance of Rs.6000/- was awarded to

petitioner and also looking to the fact that the respondent is

willing to enhance the maintenance amount commensurate to

increased price index, the respondent is directed to pay the

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 5 of 25

maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- pm from date of

petition//application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. ie. 13.1.2011 till

the date of this order and pay the future maintenance @

Rs.15,000/- pm from the date of order till the petitioner is

entitled to receive the same. She is granted litigation expenses

of Rs.7,000/-. The respondent shall pay the arrears of

maintenance and litigation expenses within three months. A

copy of order be supplied free of cost to the petitioner.”

8. The said judgment dated 12.07.2017 is under challenge before

this Court in CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017.

9. In the year 2018, the petitioner filed an execution petition,

being Ex./CRL No. 375/2018, alleging that the respondent had failed

to clear the arrears of maintenance. The said execution petition was

disposed of by the learned Family Court vide the impugned order

dated 06.04.2021, wherein it was observed that, as per the report of

the Nazir, the petitioner had already received the entire amount of

maintenance, including an excess payment of ₹2,200/-, and therefore,

nothing survived for adjudication in the said petition. The said order

reads as under:

“Ld. Counsel for DH has stated that complete payment

has not been made. Ld. Counsel further submits that as per

order dated 12.07.2017 JD was supposed to pay Rs. 15,000/-

per month from the date of application i.e. 13.01.2011.

Operative portion is noted as follow:-

***

The order clearly states that Rs.9,000/- was to be paid

from 13.01.2011 to 12.07.2017 i.e that is from the date of the

application to the date of order and thereafter, JD was directed

to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month. The amount of Rs. 9,000/- is not

in addition to the previous amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month.

Ld. Counsel for DH now submits that litigation expenses

of Rs. 7,000/- has also not been paid.

As per report of Nazir, after considering the order as

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 6 of 25

made and after taking into account the litigation expenses of

Rs. 7,000/- access payment of Rs. 2,200/- has been received by

the DH. The same is accepted by Ld. Counsel as stated.

Statement has been prepared by the Nazir on the basis of

statement of account filed by the DH. The DH still disputes the

same. She has however not been able to give any details apart

from the statement of account already furnished.

In the circumstances, the execution application is

disposed off as satisfied with access payment of Rs. 2,200/-

being received.”

10. The aforesaid order dated 06.04.2021 is under challenge before

this Court in CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

On behalf of the Petitioner

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that

while passing the impugned order dated 12.07.2017, the learned

Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts and the

legal submissions placed on record. It is contended that the enhanced

amount of maintenance is grossly inadequate and does not reflect the

true income of the respondent, who is a qualified Chartered

Accountant working in Dubai and earning more than ₹6,00,000/- per

month in Indian currency. It is further argued that the petitioner was

gainfully employed prior to her marriage but was compelled to leave

her job at the insistence of the respondent and his family, on an

assurance of financial security. Having remained out of employment

for several years, she is presently not in a position to secure dignified

sustenance on her own. It is further contended that the respondent has

taken contradictory and mutually destructive stands. On the one hand,

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 7 of 25

he sought and obtained a decree of divorce on the ground of the

petitioner‟s alleged insanity, and on the other hand, he opposes her

claim for adequate maintenance by asserting that she is capable of

earning. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is

presently residing with and dependent upon her parents, whereas the

respondent is leading a comfortable and affluent life, and is therefore

legally bound to maintain her. It is also argued that even on the

respondent‟s admitted income of approximately 30,876 AED per

month (about ₹5,72,000/-), the petitioner is claiming only around

6,500 AED towards maintenance, which cannot be said to be

excessive or unreasonable.

12. The learned counsel further contends that even assuming,

though not admitting, that the amount of maintenance fixed is

reasonable, the learned Family Court erred in directing payment from

13.01.2011, i.e., the date of filing of the fresh petition under Section

127 of the Cr.P.C. It is argued that the maintenance ought to have

been awarded from 21.07.2007, when the petitioner had first

approached the court by filing a petition under Section 127 of the

Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed on 18.11.2010 on a technical

ground, though with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause

of action. It is contended that the petitioner should not be made to

suffer on account of such technical dismissal, as the cause of action

remained the same, and the delay was not attributable to her.

13. It is further argued that due to the respondent‟s failure to clear

the arrears within six months of the order dated 12.07.2017, the

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 8 of 25

petitioner was constrained to file an execution petition. The learned

counsel submits that for the period from 13.01.2011 to 30.06.2017,

the total arrears amounted to ₹7,05,516/-, out of which only

₹2,42,100/- was paid by the respondent, including litigation

expenses, leaving a balance of ₹4,63,416/-, apart from the statutory

penalty of 25% for delayed payment. It is also contended that the

learned Family Court failed to correctly appreciate its own order

dated 12.07.2017, as the maintenance was enhanced by ₹9,000/- per

month (and not – to ₹9,000/- per month) with effect from 13.01.2011,

thereby making the total maintenance payable ₹15,000/- per month

from that date. This is further evident from the direction of the

learned Family Court to pay ₹15,000/- per month as future

maintenance from the date of the order. It is argued that the execution

petition was disposed of without proper consideration of the order

dated 12.07.2017 sought to be executed.

14. In view of the substantial increase in the income of the

respondent, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to

enhancement of maintenance, as the amount presently awarded is

wholly insufficient for her reasonable and dignified sustenance, along

with a direction for clearance of the outstanding arrears.

On behalf of the Respondent

15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other

hand, contends that the petitions under consideration are wholly

misconceived and have been filed only with the intent to harass and

pressurise the respondent. It is argued that the petitioner had earlier,

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 9 of 25

during mediation proceedings held on 21.09.2005, consented to

enhancement of maintenance from ₹3,000/- to ₹6,000/- per month,

and having accepted the same, she cannot now seek repeated

enhancement on untenable grounds. It is further contended that even

after filing MAT Appeal No. 77/2008 against the decree of divorce,

the petitioner failed to take any steps to pursue the same, which

ultimately resulted in its dismissal for non-prosecution, which reflects

lack of bona fides and a deliberate attempt to keep the respondent

entangled in prolonged litigation. The learned counsel submits that

there is no infirmity in the order dated 06.04.2021, whereby the

learned Family Court has rightly disposed of the execution petition

after recording that the petitioner had already received the entire

amount of maintenance, including an excess sum of ₹2,200/-. It is

argued that despite regularly receiving maintenance in terms of the

order dated 12.07.2017, the petitioner filed the execution petition by

misrepresenting and misinterpreting the said order.

16. It is further argued that the petitioner is in the habit of initiating

frivolous and malicious proceedings with the sole object of harassing

and humiliating the respondent and his family members. In this

regard, reference is made to a complaint filed by the petitioner under

the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 before the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of India, allegedly with the intention of jeopardising the

respondent‟s professional career. Such conduct, it is contended,

disentitles the petitioner from any discretionary relief.

17. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 10 of 25

qualified person holding an Advanced Diploma in Computer

Applications and was gainfully employed prior to her marriage. It is

contended that she has independent sources of income, including

income from fixed deposits and her share in ancestral joint family

properties, which have been deliberately concealed. It is also argued

that there has been a material change in circumstances in favour of

the respondent. He has since remarried and has a school-going

daughter from the said wedlock. The respondent is residing in the

UAE in rented accommodation along with his wife and minor

daughter. It is submitted that the child is studying in a public school

at Sharjah and that the expenses towards her school fees and

transportation have been duly disclosed in the respondent‟s affidavit

of income and expenditure. The respondent is also burdened with

loan liabilities, the obligation to maintain his senior citizen parents

residing in Delhi, and the high cost of living in the UAE, all of which

place him under considerable financial strain. In view of these

circumstances and future responsibilities towards the education and

marriage of the child, it is urged that the respondent‟s financial

capacity is limited, whereas the petitioner has sufficient income,

earning capacity, and no comparable liabilities.

18. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the present petitions, as well as the challenge to the

orders dated 12.07.2017 and 06.04.2021, are devoid of merit and are

liable to be dismissed.

19. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 11 of 25

petitioner as well as the respondent, and has perused the material

available on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

20. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties and upon a close scrutiny of the material

available on record, this Court finds that the present matter raises

three distinct issues which arise for consideration and determination.

These issues are:

(i) Issue No. 1: Whether a case is made out for further

enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded to

the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 12.07.2017,

having regard to the income and financial capacity of the

respondent?

(ii) Issue No. 2: Whether the maintenance amount is

liable to be made payable from 21.07.2007, being the

date of filing of the earlier application under Section 127

of the Cr.P.C., or from 13.01.2011, as directed by the

learned Family Court?

(iii) Issue No. 3: Whether the order dated 06.04.2021

passed by the learned Family Court in Ex./CRL No.

375/2018 suffers from an erroneous interpretation of the

operative portion of the judgment dated 12.07.2017 and

is, therefore, liable to be set aside?

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 12 of 25

Issue no. 1- Whether a case is made out for further enhancement of the

amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioner vide the impugned

order dated 12.07.2017, having regard to the income and financial

capacity of the respondent?

21. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the parties, examined the pleadings, affidavits

of income and expenditure, and the material placed on record, and

has also taken into account the settled principles governing

enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

22. The scope and object of Section 127 of Cr.P.C. were

considered by this Court in Sarita Bakshi v. State: 2022 SCC OnLine

Del 1707, where it was observed as under:

"13. The objective is to ensure that fair share according to

changed income or changed circumstances is granted to the

wife. In case the income of husband has increased or

decreased, the amount of maintenance has to be modified

accordingly. It is to ensure that if income has decreased, the

husband is not put to any hardship. In case the income has

increased, it ensures that wife receives fair share according to

increased income of husband. Similarly, income of wife can

also be considered if it accrues after grant of maintenance

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The assessment and apportionment

of the maintenance has to be done as per the Judgment of

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 while deciding

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

***

Change in circumstance in context of Section 127 of Cr.P.C.

16. The term “change in circumstances‟ as referred to in

Section 127(1) not only include a change in the financial

circumstances of the husband but may also include other

circumstantial changes in the husband or wife's life which may

have taken place since the time maintenance was first awarded.

The quantum of maintenance fixed by a court does not become

unalterable in perpetuity. The same may be altered and is

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 13 of 25

subject to increase or reduction by the courts, pursuant to an

alteration in the circumstances of either party. Thus, Rise in the

income of the husband can, therefore, be a valid change of

circumstances falling within the ambit of Section 127 sub-

section (1) of Cr.P.C.

17. In furtherance, it is vital to mention that the circumstances

contemplated under Section 127 (1) include the financial and

other circumstances of not only the husband but also will

extend to the change in financial and other circumstances of the

wife. It may therefore be concluded that increase in the income

of the husband becomes a significant criterion to alter

maintenance for the wife.

18. Further change of circumstances may not only be in terms

of financial capability but also added financial burden on the

petitioner. It may also be in terms of sufficient income accruing

to the wife to maintain herself or both of them being relieved of

a financial burden."

23. At the outset, it is to be noted that undisputedly, the petitioner

is presently unemployed and has no independent source of income.

The material on record shows that she is suffering from

schizophrenia, a serious mental health condition, and no cogent

material has been placed by the respondent to demonstrate that she is

presently capable of earning or sustaining herself independently. The

law draws a clear distinction between being educationally qualified

and actually having a regular source of income. In the present case,

the petitioner is around 45 years of age and has remained out of

employment for more than two decades. In these circumstances, and

particularly in view of her medical condition, the respondent‟s plea

that she can earn for herself is wholly speculative and unsupported by

any evidence. The income affidavit of the petitioner also reflects that

she is entirely dependent upon her parents for her day-to-day needs.

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 14 of 25

24. This Court also finds merit in the submission that the

respondent has taken inconsistent stands. On the one hand, he sought

and obtained a decree of divorce on the ground that the petitioner was

suffering from schizophrenia, projecting her mental condition as such

that the marital relationship could not be sustained. On the other

hand, he now seeks to deny her claim for adequate maintenance by

contending that she is educated and capable of earning. These two

arguments cannot coexist, and a party cannot be permitted to

approbate and reprobate by adopting mutually destructive stands at

different stages of the proceedings.

25. If the petitioner’s mental health condition was accepted by the

court as a valid ground for dissolution of marriage, it is neither fair

nor reasonable to expect her to independently maintain herself

merely on the basis of her educational qualifications. Mental illness

may substantially impair a person‟s ability to secure and retain

regular employment. Education, by itself, does not translate into

employability, especially when accompanied by a medical condition

that affects cognitive and emotional functioning of a person‟s mind.

A husband who has secured divorce by relying upon the wife‟s

mental condition cannot thereafter evade his statutory obligation by

contending that she possesses the qualification and the capability to

earn. Such a plea is clearly untenable and is accordingly rejected.

26. The respondent‟s further contention that enhancement of

maintenance is not warranted since the petitioner is residing with her

parents and belongs to a financially sound family is also without

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 15 of 25

merit. The obligation to maintain a wife under Sections 125 and 127

Cr.P.C. is personal to the husband and cannot be diluted on the basis

of the financial capacity of the wife‟s parents. The petitioner is

residing with her parents out of necessity and not by choice, and mere

residence in the parental home does not amount to financial

independence. Acceptance of such an argument would defeat the very

object of the maintenance provisions. In this regard, reference may be

made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain

v. Akanksha Jain: (2017) 15 SCC 801, wherein it has been

categorically held that the financial position of the parents of the wife

is immaterial while determining maintenance, and that it is no answer

to a claim for maintenance that the wife is educated or could

potentially earn. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are

as under:

“15. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the

proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or

husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent

income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the

necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a

claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could

support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife‟s

parents is also immaterial. The Court must take into

consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the

spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any

independent income sufficient for her or his support.

Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the

Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance

determining the quantum based on various factors brought

before the Court.”

27. As regards the financial resources of the petitioner, the

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 16 of 25

impugned order dated 12.07.2017 records as under:

“As per the financial affidavit of petitioner, she is a graduate

having professional qualification of advanced diploma in

computer application staying with her parents. Her father is a

retired government officer having income of Rs.1 Lakh p.m.

She has no dependants/off-springs to look after. She has

disclosed her income as Rs. 13,359/- p.m. and monthly

expenditure of Rs.2,000%. Her bank balance is Rs.78,4871-.

The current values of her FDRs, PPF and post office schemes

are Rs.12,27,268/-. She also disclosed that she has purchased

gold, diamond and silver jewellery worth Rs.4 Lakhs from her

current income since August, 2000 as an investment for future

security. As regards immovable properties, she has disclosed

that she jointly owned with respondent a flat in Delhi in 1999.

The present status of which is not known to her. She lives in

Sec.36, Noida and her residential accommodation is around

4,000 sq. feet.”

28. On the other hand, the respondent–husband is a highly

qualified Chartered Accountant, presently employed in Dubai. At the

time of passing of the impugned order in the year 2017, he was

admittedly earning about 30,876 AED. At the relevant time, this

Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the said amount would

roughly convert to ₹5,50,000/- per month. His professional

qualifications, stable overseas employment, and standard of living

abroad clearly demonstrates strong financial capacity.

29. The submission of the respondent that, owing to high inflation

and the cost of living in Dubai, it is difficult for him to maintain

himself, his present wife, the daughter from his second marriage, as

well as his parents residing in India, are factors which are relevant

and cannot be ignored while adjudicating these petitions. However,

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 17 of 25

these circumstances, by themselves, cannot be a ground to deny or

curtail the maintenance payable to the petitioner.

30. The respondent has further stated in his affidavit that his

monthly expenditure is approximately AED 32,564/-, which includes

rent, utilities, food, transportation, repayment of personal loans, and

other voluntary financial liabilities, in addition to expenses towards

the maintenance of his parents, wife, and the education and other

needs of his daughter.

31. The contention of the respondent that his income should be

assessed only after accounting for repayment of loan EMIs, personal

loans, and other voluntary financial liabilities cannot be accepted. It

is a settled position of law that while determining the income of a

spouse for the purpose of fixing or enhancing maintenance, only

statutory and mandatory deductions are to be considered. Voluntary

financial commitments, including repayment of personal loans, home

loan EMIs, insurance premiums, or similar expenses, cannot be

permitted to dilute or defeat the statutory obligation to maintain a

dependent spouse. In this regard, reference may be made to the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Subhash v. Mamta @

Raksha, MAT.APP.(F.C.) No. 195/2025, decided on 26.05.2025,

wherein it was categorically held that repayment of personal loans

and EMIs voluntarily undertaken by the earning spouse do not

qualify as permissible deductions and cannot override the primary

obligation to maintain a dependent spouse or child. The Court

reiterated that maintenance is required to be assessed on the basis of

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 18 of 25

the “free income” of the earning spouse, and not on the net income

remaining after voluntary deductions.

32. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is unable to

accept the respondent‟s plea that all the stated liabilities and expenses

should be taken into account so as to curtail or deny enhancement of

maintenance. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the

respondent is working and earning in Dubai, UAE, and therefore, the

cost of living and standard of living in the country of employment are

relevant considerations. In Bindu Chaudhary v. Deepak Suga:

2016:DHC:6795-DB, it was held as under:

“7. If a person is working in Dubai, he earns in the currency of

that country and spends also in that currency. It is not open to

the wife to merely convert his income into Indian currency and

seek enhancement. The Court has to consider the cost of living

as per the living standards in the country where he is

employed.”

33. A careful scrutiny of the respondent‟s affidavit of income and

expenditure reveals that even after excluding impermissible

deductions and after accounting for reasonable expenses under

various heads, the respondent would, on a conservative assessment,

still be left with a monthly surplus of about AED 8-10,000/-, which

would roughly translate to about ₹1.5-1.8 lakhs per month (in the

year 2017). It is also relevant to note that the said income affidavit

filed before the Family Court is about ten years old. Further, even as

far back as the year 2007, the respondent had disclosed his income to

be approximately ₹2.5 lakhs per month, reflecting a steady upward

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 19 of 25

trajectory in his earnings. Having regard to the passage of time, it can

reasonably be inferred that the respondent‟s present income would be

higher than what is reflected in the old affidavit. Therefore, it is clear

that the respondent possesses sufficient financial capacity much

beyond the amount presently being paid towards maintenance.

34. The object of Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that

maintenance remains fair and realistic in light of changed

circumstances, including the rise in cost of living and improvement in

the financial position of the person liable to pay. Maintenance is not

intended to be a mere subsistence allowance, but is meant to enable

the dependent spouse to live with dignity, in a manner reasonably

consistent with the status of the other spouse.

35. Having regard to the petitioner‟s medical condition, her lack of

independent income, her dependence on her aged parents, and the

respondent‟s substantial income, professional standing, and standard

of living, this Court is of the considered opinion that the existing

maintenance of ₹15,000/- per month is inadequate.

36. Accordingly, the maintenance payable to the petitioner, with

effect from 12.07.2017, is enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month.

Issue no. 2 - Whether the maintenance amount is liable to be made

payable from 21.07.2007, being the date of filing of the earlier

application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., or from 13.01.2011, as

directed by the learned Family Court?

37. The present revision petition also requires this Court to

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 20 of 25

examine the legality of the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 to the

extent it relates to the date from which the enhanced maintenance has

been made payable. By the said order, the learned Family Court

enhanced the maintenance payable to the petitioner from ₹6,000/- per

month to ₹9,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the

application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., i.e., 13.01.2011, and further

fixed future maintenance at ₹15,000/- per month from the date of the

order.

38. The grievance of the petitioner is that the enhancement ought

to have been made operative from 21.07.2007, being the date on

which an earlier application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was filed.

39. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the earlier application

dated 21.07.2007 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order

dated 18.11.2010 on the ground of non-maintainability, as it had been

filed through the mother of the petitioner. Though the dismissal was

not on merits, the proceedings nonetheless came to an end, with

liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in her own

name on the same cause of action.

40. The legal effect of such dismissal is that the earlier

proceedings stood terminated and did not survive for any further

consideration. The liberty granted by the learned Magistrate merely

enabled the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings; it did not have the

effect of reviving the dismissed application or relating the subsequent

proceedings back to the date of the earlier filing.

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 21 of 25

41. It is well settled that enhancement of maintenance under

Section 127 of Cr.P.C. is ordinarily granted from the date of filing of

the application seeking such enhancement, unless the court, for

reasons to be recorded, directs otherwise. In the present case, the

application filed on 21.07.2007 did not result in any adjudication and

ceased to exist upon its dismissal. Consequently, it could not have

been taken into account for determining the effective date of

enhancement.

42. The fresh application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was

admittedly filed on 13.01.2011. The learned Family Court, therefore,

rightly granted enhanced maintenance from the said date. This Court

finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the approach adopted by the

learned Family Court in this regard.

43. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the earlier dismissed

application to seek retrospective enhancement is misplaced. Once an

application stands dismissed, even on technical grounds, the

subsequent proceedings cannot be treated as a continuation thereof.

Retrospective enhancement cannot be granted on the basis of a

proceeding which no longer exists in the eyes of law.

44. This Court also finds that the learned Family Court has

exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled

principles. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error has been

demonstrated which would warrant interference in revisional

jurisdiction.

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 22 of 25

45. Accordingly, this Court holds that the enhancement of

maintenance with effect from 13.01.2011 is as per law and calls for

no interference. The challenge raised by the petitioner on this aspect

is devoid of merit. The impugned order dated 12.07.2017 is,

therefore, affirmed, insofar as it relates to the effective date of

enhancement of maintenance.

Issue no. 3 : Whether the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned

Family Court in Ex./CRL No. 375/2018 suffers from an erroneous

interpretation of the operative portion of the order dated 12.07.2017 and

is, therefore, liable to be set aside?

46. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the operative portion

of the order dated 12.07.2017. By the said order, the learned Family

Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of

₹9,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under

Section 127 Cr.P.C., i.e., 13.01.2011, till the date of the order, and to

pay future maintenance at the rate of ₹15,000/- per month from the

date of the order onwards. Litigation expenses of ₹7,000/- were also

awarded, with a direction to clear the arrears within three months.

47. A plain reading of the said order makes it abundantly clear that

the maintenance payable to the petitioner was enhanced to ₹9,000/-

per month for the period from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017. The order

does not state, either expressly or by necessary implication, that an

additional sum of ₹9,000/- was to be paid over and above the earlier

maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month. In case, such an intention

existed, the learned Family Court would have stated so in clear and

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 23 of 25

unambiguous terms.

48. The expression “pay maintenance amount of Rs.9,000/- pm

from date of petition/application” necessarily signifies substitution of

the earlier amount and not award of any additional amount over the

existing amount. This interpretation is further reinforced by the

subsequent direction granting future maintenance at the rate of

₹15,000/- per month from the date of the order. The clear

demarcation of two distinct periods – one prior to the order and one

thereafter – leaves no scope for ambiguity.

49. The learned Family Court, while passing the order dated

06.04.2021, has correctly appreciated the scope and intent of the

order dated 12.07.2017. On the basis of the Nazir‟s report and the

material on record, it was found that the respondent had already paid

the entire amount due, including litigation expenses, and that an

excess amount of ₹2,200/- had been received by the petitioner. The

petitioner was unable to point out any concrete discrepancy in the

calculation, apart from reiterating her own interpretation of the earlier

order.

50. Thus, this Court finds no error in the conclusion reached by the

learned Family Court that the petitioner‟s understanding – that the

respondent was liable to pay ₹15,000/- per month even for the period

prior to 12.07.2017 – is not borne out from the record.

51. In view of the above, this Court holds that the order dated

06.04.2021 does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 24 of 25

misinterpretation warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The execution petition was rightly disposed of as fully satisfied.

Accordingly, the challenge to the order dated 06.04.2021 is without

merit and is rejected.

52. This Court is also constrained to note that this particular issue

raised by the petitioner, by way of CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021, verges

on being frivolous and reflects an inconsistent and shifting stand

taken by the petitioner. In the earlier revision petition filed in the year

2017, which is also being decided by this common judgment, the

petitioner had, throughout her pleadings, proceeded on the basis that

the monthly maintenance had been enhanced to ₹9,000/- per month

pursuant to the order dated 12.07.2017. At no stage was it pleaded

that the maintenance had been enhanced by ₹9,000/-, so as to make

the total maintenance payable @ ₹15,000/- per month with effect

from 13.01.2011.

53. However, a complete summersault was taken when the

execution petition was filed before the learned Family Court and

thereafter when the present revision petition came to be filed in the

year 2021 before this Court. For the first time, the petitioner sought

to contend that the maintenance had been enhanced by ₹9,000/- and

not to ₹9,000/-, despite the clear and unambiguous language of the

order dated 12.07.2017. As observed above, such contention is not

only contrary to the plain reading of the operative portion of the order

dated 12.07.2017 but also inconsistent with the petitioner‟s own

earlier pleadings before this Court. This attempt to re-interpret a clear

CRL.REV.P. 950/2017 & connected matter Page 25 of 25

judicial order, after having accepted and acted upon it for years, can

only be viewed as an effort on the part of the petitioner to reopen

settled issues and burdening the docket of the Courts.

54. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the present petition i.e. CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 deserves to be

dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the petition challenging the order

dated 06.04.2021 is dismissed with nominal costs of ₹10,000/-, to be

deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (Delhi High

Court).

55. With above directions, the present petitions are disposed of.

56. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

FEBRUARY 04, 2026/A

TD/GJ/RB