Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force And ... on 27 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13022/2025, CM APPL. 53273/2025, CM APPL.
53274/2025 & CM APPL. 53275/2025
RAVINDER KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
versus
INDO-TIBETAN BORDER POLICE FORCE
AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC
with Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Mr. Krishna
Chaitanya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 27.08.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition, according to us, borders on abuse of process
of Court.
2. The petitioner is presently working as a Head Constable in the
Indo-Tibetan Border Police. His monthly income is over ₹ 72,000/-.
He is aggrieved by the fact that, from this amount, an amount of ₹
7,000/- is being credited, every month, into the accounts of
Respondents 2 and 3, who are his estranged wife and son. He,
therefore, prays that a mandamus may be issued to the respondents to
W.P.(C) 13022/2025
stop the said deduction and to credit his entire monthly salary into his
own account.
3. The petitioner first approached this Court without impleading
Respondents 2 and 3. We, therefore, disposed of the writ petition
noting this fact. He has reapproached the Court after impleading
Respondents 2 and 3.
4. From the record filed with the writ petition, it is apparent that
the payment of ₹ 7000/- pm made to Respondents 2 and 3 are by way
of compliance with order dated 26 February 2024 passed by the
Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Hamirpur, Himachal
Pradesh in Crl. MA 85/2023 filed by Respondents 2 and 3 under
Section 125(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
interim maintenance. The learned Family Court allowed the aforesaid
application of Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 125(1)(d) of the Cr.
PC and directed thus:
"8. Since the respondent is husband of petitioner No.1 and
father of petitioner No. 2, it is his moral duty to maintain the
petitioners. It has been mentioned that respondent is serving as a
Head Constable in ITBP and as per affidavit his monthly income is
₹ 72,136/-. Though, the respondent has got three daughters from
previous marriage to look-after but the fact remains that it is his
moral duty to maintain the petitioners being husband and father. In
the interest of justice, the petition is hereby allowed and interim
monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹5,000/- is awarded to
petitioner No.1 and interim monthly maintenance at the rate of
₹2,000/- is awarded to petitioner No.2 (Total: ₹5,000/- + ₹2,000/- =
₹7,000/- per month) from the date of filing of this petition till
disposal of main petition."
5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order passed by the
W.P.(C) 13022/2025
learned Family Court by way of Criminal Revision 283/2024, which
was dismissed by the learned High Court by the following order dated
8 July 2024:
"Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated
26.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge (Family
Court) Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby
learned Court below, while considering the prayer made on behalf
of the respondents for grant of ad-interim maintenance under
Section 125 (d)Cr.P.C, proceeded to award sum of Rs.7000/- per
month (Rs. 5000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2000/- to respondent
No.2) as interim maintenance, petitioner has approached this Court
in the instant proceedings filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Court Act, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod
Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that learned Court
below, while ordering ad-interim maintenance, failed to take note
of the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record
suggestive of the fact that the respondent has sufficient means to
sustain herself.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the
impugned order, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the
same and as such, no interference is called for.
4. Needless to say, while considering prayer, if any, for ad-
interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Court is not
required to see documentary evidence, if any, adduced on record,
rather at that stage, Court is only required to see pleadings of the
parties seeking such maintenance. Very purpose and object of
granting interim maintenance during the pendency of the main
petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is to ensure that a person
seeking such maintenance is not left to starve.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no
merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed, as
a result thereof, order impugned in the instant proceedings is
upheld, with a direction to learned Court below to decide the main
petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two months. Needless to say, maintenance
received by the respondents as ad-interim maintenance shall be
adjusted in the amount, if any, awarded in the main petition under
W.P.(C) 13022/2025
Section 125 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause
presence of their respective clients before the Court below on
30.07.2024, enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated
time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
6. In view of the aforesaid, we find it strange that the petitioner
has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition
seeking an interdiction against the respondents deducting, from the
petitioner's salary ₹ 7,000/- every month and crediting it into the
account of Respondents 2 and 3. The deduction and crediting into the
account is in terms of the orders passed by the learned Family Court,
as affirmed by the High Court.
7. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought
to submit that the High Court has not put a quietus to the dispute as it
has directed that ad interim maintenance paid to the respondents
would be adjusted in the amount which would be finally awarded in
the respondents' favour in the Section 125(1)(d) proceedings instituted
by them.
8. This submission has nothing to do with the controversy. The
deduction of ₹ 7,000/- pm is by way of interim maintenance to the
respondents, as directed by the learned Family Court and affirmed by
the High Court.
9. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is
apparently seeking to use this Court to obtain an interdiction of the
W.P.(C) 13022/2025
orders passed by the competent Courts in Himachal Pradesh including
the Himachal Pradesh High Court. We deprecate this.
10. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition with costs quantified
at ₹ 25,000/-. The said amount shall be deducted from the salary of the
petitioner for the next month and credited along with the amount of ₹
7,000/- into the accounts of Respondents 2 and 3.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
AUGUST 27, 2025/yg
W.P.(C) 13022/2025
