Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Delhi/
  4. 2024/
  5. March

Sanjay Kumar Baranwal vs. Bhavna Kumari

Decided on 28 March 2024• Citation: MAT.APP.(F.C.)/87/2019• High Court of Delhi
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                 *    IN THE  HIGH COURT   OF DELHI  AT NEW  DELHI                
                                                Judgment reserved on: 22.02.2024  
                 %                             Judgment pronounced on: 28.03.2024 
                 +    MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 & C.M. No. APPL. 13356/2019, C.M.    
                      APP. 407/2020, C.M. APP. 3144/2023, CM APPL. 42129/2023, CM 
                      APP. 50290/2023, CM APP. 50354/2023, CM APP. 50361/2023, CM 
                      APP. 50363/2023                                             
                      SANJAY  KUMAR   BARANWAL                   ..... Appellant  
                                     Through:  Mr. Hargovind Jha, Advocate along  
                                               with appellant.                    
                                     versus                                       
                      BHAVNA   KUMARI                           ..... Respondent  
                                     Through:  Mr Rajnish Ranjan and Mr Shivansh  
                                               Srivastava, Advocates.             
                 +    MAT.APP.  (F.C.) 159/2019 & C.M. No. APPL. 27111/2019       
                      BHAVNA   KUMARI                            ..... Appellant  
                                     Through:  Mr Rajnish Ranjan and Mr Shivansh  
                                               Srivastava, Advocates.             
                                     versus                                       
                      SANJAY  KUMAR   BARANWAL                  ..... Respondent  
                                     Through:  Mr. Hargovind Jha, Advocate along  
                                               with appellant.                    
                      CORAM:                                                      
                      HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE RAJIV  SHAKDHER                       
                      HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE AMIT  BANSAL                          
                           [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]     
                 AMIT  BANSAL,  J.:                                               
                 1.   Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order.      
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 1 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44                                                                   

                 2.   MAT.APP.  (F.C.) 87/2019, has been filed by Mr Sanjay Kumar 
                 Baranwal (‘Husband’) seeking setting aside/modification of the impugned
                             th                                                   
                 order dated 29 January, 2019, passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts,
                 Dwarka, New Delhi (‘Family Court’) whereby the application filed by the
                 Mrs Bhavna Kumari (‘Wife’) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956
                 (‘HMA’) was disposed of, directing the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of
                 Rs.66,000/- per month (Rs.22,000/- each to the Wife and the two daughters)
                 as pendente lite maintenance, until the disposal of the divorce petition filed
                 by the Husband under Sections 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.              
                 3.   MAT.APP.  (F.C.) 159/2019, has been filed by the Wife seeking
                 enhancement of the interim maintenance from Rs.66,000/- per month to a sum
                 of Rs.1,25,000/- per month.                                      
                 4.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are set out hereinafter. The parties
                               th                                                 
                 got married on 8 March 2000, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two
                                                       th              th         
                 children were born from the said wedlock on 13 March 2001 and 15 April
                 2006 respectively. Disputes arose between the parties in March 2018, which
                 resulted in multiple rounds of litigation.                       
                 5.   The present petition arises from a petition filed by the Husband seeking
                 dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, before the
                 Family Court. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the Wife moved
                 an application under Section 24 of HMA, seeking interim maintenance at the
                 rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per month.                                 
                 6.   By way of the impugned order, the Family Court assessed the monthly
                 disposable income of the Husband in the range of Rs. Rs.1,10,000/- per month
                 and directed the Husband to pay a cumulative sum of Rs.66,000/- per month
                 as interim maintenance, Rs.22,000/- each, to the Wife and the two daughters.
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 2 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44                                                                   

                 The operative portion of the order passed by the Family Court has been set
                 out below:                                                       
                      “18  The petitioner has no other liability except to maintain himself as
                      well as his wife and both the children. Thus, entire disposable income
                      of the petitioner of Rs. 1,10,000 is required to be divided into 5 equal
                      shares. Out of which one share is required to be given to respondent /
                      wife Bhavna Kumari, one share to his daughter Ms. Sanhita Kumari,
                      one share to his son Master (SIC) Shreya Sargam, one share to the
                      petitioner and one additional share to the petitioner for his day to day
                      needs and expenses. Thus, respondent is entitled to receive a total sum
                      of Rs.66,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance from the
                      petitioner.                                                 
                      19   In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application filed
                      by the respondent is allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of
                      Rs.66,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance to the respondent
                      from the date of filing of application till the disposal of petition.
                           The petitioner shall make the payment of arrear of maintenance
                      within a period of three months from today. Any amount paid by the
                      petitioner to the respondent as maintenance under the order of any court
                      or otherwise shall be adjusted against the arrears. The application is
                      accordingly disposed of.”                                   
                 7.   Assailing the impugned order passed by the Family Court, both parties
                 have approached this Court by way of the present appeals.        
                 8.   In the appeal filed by the Husband, the predecessor bench passed a
                 detailed order dated 9th May, 2019, directing the Husband to pay a sum of
                 Rs.66,000/- per month to the Wife including the school fees of the children
                 and also directed him to clear arrears of maintenance awarded by the Family
                 Court within 6 weeks. Further, the parties were referred to mediation.
                 However, the mediation was not successful.                       
                 9.   Subsequently, the Husband filed an application, C.M. No.    
                 APPL.3144/2023, seeking modification of the impugned order based on
                 change in circumstances.                                         
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 3 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44                                                                   

                 10.  Broadly, the Husband seeks modification of the impugned order on the
                 following grounds:                                               
                 I.   The elder daughter has attained majority in the year 2019. She has
                      started working in the USA and has been earning substantial amounts
                      since April 2020. Therefore, there is no requirement to pay any
                      maintenance qua her.                                        
                 II.  The Husband who is employed at Tata Consultancy Services, has
                      experienced a reduction in salary since August 2021.        
                 III. The Wife is residing in the matrimonial house whereas the Husband is
                      residing in a separate rented accommodation and the rental has
                      increased over a period of time.                            
                 IV.  The  Husband is suffering from various medical ailments and 
                      depression.                                                 
                 V.   The Wife is well qualified to make her own living rather than depending
                      upon the Husband.                                           
                 11.  In the reply filed on behalf of the Wife, it has been stated as under:
                 I.   The elder daughter has recently graduated after completing her 4-year
                      degree in May 2023 and has started earning only thereafter. 
                 II.  As per the salary slip filed by the Husband, his annual income in
                      December 2018 was Rs.23,14,281/- and the same has increased to
                      Rs.24,29,322/- in November 2022. Therefore, it is wrong to state that
                      his salary has reduced.                                     
                 III. Apart from the matrimonial house, which is in the occupation of the
                      Wife, the Husband also owns various other properties from which he is
                      drawing rental income.                                      
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 4 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44                                                                   

                 IV.  The Wife is not keeping well and has been advised knee surgery due to
                      degenerative changes in the knee joint. Further, the younger daughter
                      was diagnosed with Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis wherein the
                      Wife had spent about Rs.1,31,390/- for the treatment.       
                 V.   The younger daughter is studying in Class XII and the Wife is meeting
                      the educational expenses of the younger daughter with the help of
                      financial support from her brothers.                        
                 12.  We  have heard the counsels for the parties and examined the material
                 on record.                                                       
                 13.  Counsel appearing on behalf of the Wife candidly admits that after
                 completion of the 4-year degree i.e., Bachelor of Computer Science in
                 Software Engineering and Cyber Security from a USA university, the elder
                 daughter has secured a job in the USA with effect from July 2023. Therefore,
                 there need not be any maintenance towards her after July 2023.   
                 14.  As regards the submission of the Husband that the elder daughter had
                 started earning since April 2020, it is an admitted position that the elder
                 daughter completed her engineering degree in May 2023. Even if, some
                 amounts were earned by the elder daughter before graduation, it would only
                 be a minimal amount to meet her living expenses. Therefore, we are unable
                 to accept the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Husband.
                 15.  Next, it is further contended on behalf of the Husband that his salary
                 has seen a reduction since August 2021.                          
                 16.  As per the latest salary slip for the month of November 2022, placed on
                 record before this Court, the Husband is drawing a gross monthly salary of
                 Rs.1,79,792/-. This figure includes Rs.27,550/- towards the House Rent
                 Allowance, besides other allowances. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 5 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44                                                                   

                 Rs.32,799/- is deducted towards Income Tax and further sums of Rs.6,936/-,
                 Rs.5,780/- and Rs.5,510/- are deducted towards Provident Fund, Voluntarily
                 Provident Fund and NPS (‘National Pension System’) respectively. After the
                 aforesaid deductions, the net monthly pay of the Husband is Rs.1,28,757/-.
                 17.  In comparison, as per the salary slip for the month of December 2018,
                 placed before the Family Court, the Husband was drawing a gross monthly
                 salary of Rs.1,84,938/- which is not significantly different from the salary
                 drawn in November 2022. However, the net monthly pay that the Husband
                 was receiving in December 2018 (i.e., Rs.1,41,807/-), was slightly more than
                 the net monthly pay for the month of November 2022 (i.e., Rs.1,28,757/-)
                 since the net amounts deducted towards saving were lesser in December 2018.
                 The record reveals that the Husband is securing his future by contributing
                 towards the Provident Fund, Voluntarily Provident Fund and NPS. On the
                 contrary, the Wife has no independent source of income, as recorded in the
                 impugned order passed by the Family Court.                       
                 18.  Therefore, the submission of the Husband that he is financially worse
                 off now than the period when the impugned order was passed is unmerited.
                 19.  In view of the discussion above and taking into account that the elder
                 daughter of the parties has started earning with effect from July 2023, we are
                 of the view that the interim maintenance payable by the Husband should thus,
                 be reduced from Rs.66,000/- to Rs.44,000/- per month with effect from July
                 2023. It is ordered accordingly.                                 
                 20.  Subject to the aforesaid modification, the impugned order is sustained.
                 21.  Accordingly, both the appeals along with pending applications stand
                 disposed of.                                                     
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 6 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44                                                                   

                 22.  Arrears of maintenance, if any, shall be cleared by the Husband within
                 four weeks from the date of this judgment.                       
                 23.  Taking into account the divorce was filed by the Husband as far back
                 in 2018, the Family Court shall endeavour to expeditiously decide the same.
                                                            AMIT  BANSAL          
                                                               (JUDGE)            
                                                          RAJIV  SHAKDHER         
                                                               (JUDGE)            
                 MARCH   28, 2024                                                 
                 rt                                                               
       Signature Not Verified                                                     
       Digitally Signed By:DINESH                                                 
                 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 87/2019 and connected                 Page 7 of 7 
       KUMAR                                                                      
       Signing Date:28.03.2024                                                    
       11:59:44