$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 339/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19073/2026 NIMIT GANDHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Ms. Deeksha, Mr. Chetanya Puri, Mr. Abhay, Advs. versus HARSHITA G GANDHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Ruchi Munjal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 19074-06/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of. CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 339/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19073/2026 3. This is a petition filed under Section 438 read with Sections 442 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) against the order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned ASJ- 03, South District, Saket, New Delhi in C.A. No. 282/2023, seeking the following reliefs: “a) allow the present petition and set aside the order dated 29th May, 2026 passed by the Court of Shri Sonu Agnihotri, Learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, South District, Saket, New Delhi in C.A. No. 282/2023; 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 09/07/2026 at 10:48:35 b) pass ad-interim order(s) in terms of prayer (a) and confirm the same after notice; c) pass such other order(s) or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an application before the learned ASJ Court seeking summoning of the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the Respondent on the ground that, contrary to her stand that she was residing as a mercy guest at Kalkaji, she was in fact residing with her father at Malviya Nagar. 5. He further submits that the CDRs are essential for deciding the controversy between the parties as they would establish that the Respondent is residing with her father at Malviya Nagar and not at Kalkaji. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent, who appears on advance notice, submits that although the Respondent has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing her application for interim maintenance/rental accommodation, it was the present Petitioner who had filed the application for summoning the CDRs, which has now been dismissed by the learned ASJ Court. 7. The learned ASJ dismissed the aforesaid application, observing as under: “…for the purpose of deciding the present appeal, stand of appellant is not that she is spending anything right now for her residence and that contention of appellant is that she wants house equivalent to her matrimonial house from Respondent but that as of now, appellant is not 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 09/07/2026 at 10:48:35 paying anything to anyone for her residence and it will not make difference whether appellant is residing in Kalkaji or in Malviya Nagar with her father. Present appeal has been filed by appellant against order of Ld. Trial Court refusing her grant of interim maintenance and at present, appellant is not paying anything for her residence arid in these circumstances, it will be immaterial whether appellant resides with her father in Malviya Nagar or in Kalkaji. Application filed by Respondent to my mind is without merits and is accordingly dismissed.” 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that by way of the present petition, the Petitioner seeks to collect evidence through the Court, which is impermissible. It is submitted that the Petitioner is at liberty to lead his own evidence before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. The Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 10. It may be mentioned that the forum of the Court cannot be used for collecting evidence for one of the parties. If the case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent is not residing at Kalkaji as a mercy guest but is residing with her father at Malviya Nagar, it is for the Petitioner to establish the said facts by leading evidence before the learned Trial Court. The provisions of law and the process of the Court cannot be invoked for the purpose of collecting evidence in a litigation pending between the parties. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to collect evidence through the forum of the Court merits acceptance. 12. In view of the above, the present revision petition stands dismissed. 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 09/07/2026 at 10:48:35 Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J. JULY 6, 2026/ys/m 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 09/07/2026 at 10:48:35