$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 286/2026 & CRL.M.As. 16789/2026 AMJAD KHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Chetan, Mohd. Zubair, Mohd. Irfan, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 29.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 16790/2026 (condonation of delay) 1. Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the present revision petition. 2. For the reasons disclosed in the application, the delay of 88 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. 3. The application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 286/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16789/2026 4. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397/401 of the CrPC, 1973, read with Section 528 BNSS, challenging the interim order 21.11.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Maintenance Case No. 183/2025. 5. The impugned order by the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month towards the 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 01/08/2026 at 10:57:56 maintenance of the minor child pending adjudication of the maintenance proceedings. 6. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 04.11.2021, out of which a daughter was born on 14.03. 2022. Subsequently differences arose between the parties, the parties have been residing separately since 15.10.2022. Respondent No.2 instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. 7. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Family Court, by order dated 21.11.2025, granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month in favour of the minor child, which was subsequently continued by order dated 09.02.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has committed a jurisdictional error in awarding interim maintenance without properly appreciating the material placed on record. It is contented by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is employed as a Government Teacher and earns approximately ₹77,000/- to ₹80,000/- per month, and is, therefore, financially capable of maintaining herself as well as the minor child. 9. It is further submitted that the Family Court erroneously presumed the petitioner income without any supporting material and failed to consider his financial liabilities, including the obligation to maintain his aged parents. It is also argued that the impugned order was passed before the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to place his written statement and supporting documents on record. 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 01/08/2026 at 10:57:56 10. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the petition. It is submitted that the impugned order merely grants ad-interim maintenance to the minor child and calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. The challenge in the present revision is confined to the ad-interim maintenance awarded to the minor child. It is well settled that both parents bear a legal and moral obligation to maintain their child. At the stage of granting ad-interim maintenance, the Family Court is only required to make a prima facie assessment so as to ensure that the immediate needs of the child are adequately met pending final adjudication. 12. In the facts of the present case, the Family Court has directed payment of ₹10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor child. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not find the said amount to be excessive or disproportionate so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the respective incomes of the parties and their financial liabilities involve disputed questions of fact, which remain open for consideration by the Family Court at the appropriate stage on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties. 13. The statutory obligation is paramount to the wish of the father and he cannot be permitted to limit this claim of the child on flimsy and baseless grounds. Reliance is placed on the judgment by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Dr R.K. Sood v. Usha Rani Soodi1 and the relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: 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 01/08/2026 at 10:57:56 "17. Under the Hindu Law father not only has a moral but even a statutory obligation to maintain his infant children. The scope of his duty is to be regulated directly in relation to the money, status, that the father enjoys. The right of maintenance of a child from his father cannot be restricted to two meals a day but must be determined on the basis of the benefit, status and money that the child would have enjoyed as if he was living with the family, including his mother and father. Irrespective of the differences and grievances which each spouse may have against the other, the endeavour of the Court has to be to provide the best to the child in the facts and circumstances of each case and more so keeping the welfare of the child in mind for all such determinations. Liability to maintain one's children is dear from the text of this statute as well as the various decided cases in this regard. The statutory obligation is paramount to the wish of the father and he cannot be permitted to limit this claim of the child on flimsy and baseless grounds." 14. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that a sum of Rs.10,000/- does not seem to be exorbitant. 15. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 16. In view of above, the revision stands failed and is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 29, 2026/ab 1 2017: DHC:4854 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 01/08/2026 at 10:57:56