CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/534/2026 of ABHISHEK KAPOOR Vs STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. on 10 September 2026

O R D E R

% 10.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), seeking setting aside of the impugned ad-interim maintenance order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts-03, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in MT. Case No. 139/2025 titled Reena Kapoor & Ors. v. Abhishek Kapoor.

3. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2, Reena Kapoor, were married on 23.01.2014. Two children were born out of wedlock—a daughter in 2015 and a son in 2022. As mentioned in the impugned order, the respondent no.2 is working as a dental clinic helper.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking maintenance, which was registered as Mt. Case No. 139/2025 before the learned Family Court. The petitioner filed his reply along with his income affidavit and other documents.

5. Vide order dated 11.11.2025, the learned Family Court directed the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for the minor children through Respondent No.2 and further directed the petitioner to pay the school fees of the children directly to the school. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: “The Court is of the opinion that the basic needs of the minor petitioners cannot be kept at abeyance merely because the respondent and his counsel are not available today. In his own income and assets affidavit, the respondent has not mentioned anything about his employment or income. However, from the bank account statements and the documents furnished and the fact that the respondent is an MBA as stated in his affidavit, it is reasonably to assume that the respondent is having a good income. Accordingly, in order to meet urgent requirements of the minor petitioner no. 2 & 3, the respondent is directed to pay ad-interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month, for each minor petitioner no. 2 & 3 (totaling to Rs.10,000/- per month), directly in the bank account of the petitioner no. 1. Also, the respondent is directed to pay the school fees of the children, directly with the school.” Also, the said amount is quantifiable from the date of filing of the petition till disposal of the interim maintenance application or till final orders.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family

Court has not properly assessed the actual income and financial capacity of the petitioner before imposing a recurring financial liability upon him. He submits that the petitioner is presently unemployed and has no independent regular source of income. He further submits that the petitioner is undergoing treatment for depression and psychological ailments at IHBAS, which ought to have been considered while determining his present earning capacity.

8. He also submits that the learned Family Court has proceeded substantially on the allegations of Respondent No.2 regarding the petitioner’s alleged property dealing, money-lending activities and luxurious lifestyle, without there being reliable documentary proof of the alleged income.Learned counsel further submits that, in her income affidavit, Respondent No.2 has herself stated that she has no loans against her and that no EMIs are being paid by her.

9. It is submitted that there is a discrepancy between the statement made before the Court and the contents of the income affidavit, which is causing difficulty to the petitioner. He further submits that the income affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 is completely incorrect, as she has not disclosed her employment or assets and has stated in the income affidavit that she has no dependents upon her.

10. The Court has heard the counsel and perused the material on record.

11. It is to be noted that the learned Trial Court has granted ad-interim maintenance only to the two minor children and not to Respondent No.2/wife. The said maintenance is intended to meet the basic and immediate requirements of the minor children, who are admittedly residing with Respondent No.2 and are being looked after by her. The mere contention of the petitioner that he is presently unemployed, therefore, does not persuade this Court to interfere with the modest amount of ad-interim maintenance granted for the minor children.

12. The daughter is approximately 11 years of age, whereas the son is approximately 4 years of age. At this stage of their growth, their needs cannot be confined merely to payment of school fees. Their education, upbringing, nutrition and other essential requirements necessarily entail expenditure. The amount of ₹10,000/- per month awarded towards the two minor children, i.e. ₹5,000/- per child, therefore, cannot, at this stage, be said to be excessive or unreasonable, particularly when no ad-interim maintenance has been awarded to the wife.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.11.2025, particularly when the amount of ad-interim maintenance awarded is modest and confined to the two minor children.

14. The present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the above terms.

15. Needless to state, the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present revision petition and shall not prejudice either party before the learned Family Court on the merits of the case.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/JYH/rm