Delhi High Court
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/516/2026 of SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs RAVINDER KAUR & ANR. on 7 September 2026
Page 1 of 2 $~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010416852026 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 516/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27364-65/2026 SUKHVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocate. versus RAVINDER KAUR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM:
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 516/2026
$~101
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010416852026
+
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 516/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27364-65/2026
SUKHVINDER SINGH
.....Petitioner
Through:
Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocate.
versus
RAVINDER KAUR & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
07.09.2026
1. By way of the present petition under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner – husband assails an order of the Sessions Court dated 14.07.2026, by which an appeal against an order of ad-interim maintenance in favour of the respondents, passed by the Magistrate’s Court, was modified.
2. The Magistrate’s Court vide order dated 06.09.2025, directed payment of ad-interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of both the respondents herein, being the wife of the petitioner and her minor child. The order was carried in appeal to the Sessions Court by the petitioner herein.
3. The Sessions Court vide the impugned order dated 14.07.2026 modified the order, holding that respondent No. 2, being the son of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:33:51
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 516/2026
respondent No. 1 from her previous marriage, was not entitled to maintenance from the petitioner herein. The Court found that there was no proof that respondent No. 2 has been adopted by the petitioner. However, the Court sustained the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month holding that the quantum of ad-interim maintenance was justified for respondent No. 1 alone.
4. I have heard Ms. Komal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It is clear from the impugned orders that the challenge in this petition is to an order of ad-interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance remains pending before the Magistrate’s Court. In these circumstances, ad-interim maintenance is fixed to avoid destitution to the family.
6. In view of the above, I do not consider it appropriate to entertain the present petition at this stage, but leave it open to the petitioner to raise all his rights and contentions in the pending proceedings for interim maintenance/final maintenance.
7. In the event, any excess amount has been found to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, it is always open to the Magistrate’s Court to pass appropriate consequential orders in this regard, after hearing the parties.
8. The petition, alongwith pending applications, is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 “B”/SM/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/09/2026 at 11:33:51