CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/596/2026 of HIMANSHU VERMA Vs NEHA VERMA on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

%

29.09.2026

1. The present petition assails the order dated 4th August, 2026 passed by the Family Court-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby the Petitioner’s application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking alteration of the interim maintenance awarded on 22nd July, 2025, has been dismissed.

2. By the order dated 22nd July, 2025, interim maintenance of ₹4,400/- per month each was awarded to the Respondent/wife and the two minor children. The Petitioner thereafter sought cancellation of the maintenance awarded to the wife on the ground that material discovered by him on the internet showed that she was working with “O-Mission Crafting” and earning approximately ₹30,000/- per month.

3. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the material placed with the application under Section 146 of the BNSS. According to him, the photographs and internet material relating to “O-Mission Crafting” show that the Respondent/wife is gainfully employed and earning about ₹30,000/- per month, a fact which, according to the Petitioner, had been concealed in her income affidavit. He contends that the Family Court could not have rejected the application merely because an offer letter or salary slip had not been produced, particularly when such documents would ordinarily be in the possession of the Respondent or her employer. It is urged that the material disclosed at least a sufficient basis to reconsider the maintenance awarded to the wife and that, once she is found to be earning, her entitlement as also the respective obligation of the parents towards the two minor children would require reconsideration.

4. The Court finds no ground to interfere. The allegation that the Respondent was earning was not raised for the first time in the application under Section 146. The order dated 22nd July, 2025 had itself considered the Petitioner’s assertion that she was employed and earning ₹22,000/- to ₹30,000/- per month, as also the material then relied upon by him, and had left the issue to be determined on evidence.

5. Section 146 contemplates alteration of maintenance upon proof of a change in circumstances arising after the order. No such change is pleaded here. The Petitioner does not contend that the Respondent secured employment after 22nd July, 2025; his case is that she was already employed and that he later came across further material to support that allegation. The subsequent discovery of some material concerning a pre-existing fact cannot, without more, constitute a change in circumstances. Besides, the internet material neither establishes an employer-employee relationship nor proves the alleged monthly income of ₹30,000/-. The allegation therefore remains a matter for determination on evidence in the pending proceedings.

6. The Family Court was therefore right in declining to revisit the interim maintenance order at this stage. The Respondent’s employment and income remain disputed questions to be decided on evidence. If the Petitioner proves his case, the Family Court may then consider its bearing on the maintenance payable to the Respondent and the contribution of each parent towards the minor children.

7. There is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. The petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 as