CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/519/2026 of MUNNA RAI Vs ABHILASHA on 7 September 2026

O R D E R

% 07.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 27467/2026 (exemption from filing the certified copies)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.M.A. 27469/2026 (condonation of delay)

1. This is an application filed by the revisionist seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the present revision petition.

2. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay stands condoned.

3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 519/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27468/2026

4. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in ‘Abhilasha v.

Munna Rai’, MT No.549/2023, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the said order till disposal of the maintenance petition.

5. Briefly stated, the revisionist and the respondent were married on 12.05.2023 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The parties thereafter resided together for a short period and have since been living separately.

6. On 24.08.2023, the respondent instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being MT No.549/2023, before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance from the revisionist. An application seeking interim maintenance was also filed therein. The revisionist entered appearance and filed his reply along with an affidavit disclosing his income and liabilities.

7. Vide the impugned order dated 20.04.2026, the learned Family Court, while considering the application for interim maintenance, noticed that the respondent was stated to be unemployed, whereas the revisionist had disclosed his monthly income as ₹20,000/-. The learned Family Court further took note of the Income Tax Return (hereinafter, referred to as ‘ITR’) of the revisionist for Assessment Year 2023-24 reflecting an income of ₹8,43,290/- and, on that basis, observed that his income was more than ₹70,000/- per month. Accordingly, the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of ₹20,000/- per month to the respondent towards interim maintenance, which order is under challenge in the present revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has assessed his income solely on the basis of an earlier ITR without considering his subsequent income affidavit, wherein his present income has been disclosed as ₹20,000/- per month. It is submitted that the business to which the said return pertained has since closed and that the petitioner also has dependent family members, including his younger brother who requires continuing medical treatment.

9. It is further submitted that the material placed before the learned Family Court indicates that the respondent was carrying on business in the name of M/s S.S. Enterprises through online platforms and that the same was not considered. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks the aforesaid relief.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the material placed on record.

11. The said perusal of the impugned order shows that though the learned Family Court noticed the income affidavit of the revisionist wherein his income was disclosed as ₹20,000/- per month, his income appears to have been assessed primarily on the basis of the ITR for Assessment Year 2023- 24, reflecting an annual income of ₹8,43,290/-. The impugned order does not deal with his specific plea that the business to which the said return pertained had since ceased, nor does it reconcile the income reflected in the said ITR with the subsequent income affidavit and other contemporaneous financial material placed on record. Though an ITR pertaining to an earlier period is a relevant piece of material, the same cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of the present income of a party without examining the subsequent circumstances and contemporaneous financial material placed on record.

12. The record further contains invoices raised in the name of the respondent/M/s S.S. Enterprises, including an invoice dated 30.04.2023 issued by Fashnear Technologies Private Limited for ₹1,11,928.70 towards advertisement and logistics charges, besides Flipkart invoices dated

28.02.2023, 31.03.2023 and 30.04.2023 for ₹27,190.66, ₹5,438.48 and ₹4,219.14, respectively. While these documents may not, by themselves, establish the present net income of the respondent, they indicate business activity during the said period and, therefore, required consideration along with her income affidavit and other contemporaneous financial material.

13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the quantum of interim maintenance has been determined without a complete assessment of the current financial position of both the parties.

14. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 is set aside. The learned Family Court is hereby directed to freshly consider the application seeking interim maintenance, after affording an opportunity to both the parties to place on record updated income affidavits and such supporting financial documents as they may seek to rely upon. All contentions of the parties are left open.

15. Nothing hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Family Court for necessary information and compliance.

17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/prg/PG