CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 548/2026 $~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010438202026 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 548/2026 & CRL.M.A. 28624-26/2026 PAWAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shahina, Advocate. versus ANCHAL KUMARI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Binay Kumar Patra, Mr. Garv Bajaj, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner-husband assails the order dated 20.05.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, whereby the respondent-wife has been granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The parties are also physically present in Court. 3. Ms. Shahina, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, submits that the respondent is herself a qualified advocate, maintains two bank accounts and also owns a vehicle, whereas the petitioner is qualified only up to Class XII, and earns a meagre income of Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month from tuitions. She submits that the learned Family Court, while 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 19/09/2026 at 11:15:41 CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 548/2026 determining the amount of interim maintenance, has erroneously proceeded on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to a Class XII qualified person in Delhi, without having regard to the petitioner’s actual income. It is further submitted that, on his present income, the petitioner is himself not in a position to meet his expenses and, therefore, cannot afford to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent, particularly when the marriage between the parties subsisted for only three months. 4. Mr. Binay Kumar Patra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, on the other hand, submits that although the respondent is a qualified advocate, she is not in practice and has no income of her own. He further submits that the car standing in the respondent’s name was gifted to her by her father and was not purchased from her income. He also submits that the petitioner had himself disclosed before the Crime Against Women Cell that he was employed at a salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month and was, in addition, earning from home tuitions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I do not consider it appropriate to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the present case. The scope of such jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or interference with findings of fact, unless the impugned order is vitiated by a jurisdictional error or material irregularity. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander1, which distils the principles governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the following terms: 1 (2012) 9 SCC 460. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:15:41 CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 548/2026 “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. xxx xxx xxx 18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases. xxx xxx xxx 20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers 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 19/09/2026 at 11:15:41 CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 548/2026 very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused.” The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao2. 6. The impugned order concerns the grant of interim maintenance, while the question of final maintenance remains pending before the learned Family Court and would be determined upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties. At the stage of interim maintenance, the learned Family Court was required to undertake a prima facie assessment on the basis of the material available on record, keeping in view the object of ensuring that the wife is not left without means of sustenance during the pendency of the proceedings. In the present case, it is admitted that neither party is an income-tax assessee and that no income-tax returns were available on record before the learned Family Court. The exact nature and extent of the petitioner’s employment and income are also in dispute and remain to be determined on the basis of evidence, which the parties are yet to lead. 7. In these circumstances, the approach adopted by the learned Family Court in computing the amount of interim maintenance on the basis of the applicable minimum wages cannot, at this stage, be faulted. The computation of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month on that basis has also not been disputed. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition, alongwith the pending applications, is dismissed, while leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open for consideration by the learned Family Court at the stage 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 19/09/2026 at 11:15:41 CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 548/2026 final adjudication. 9. It is, however, clarified that, upon conclusion of the trial, if the respondent is found not entitled to maintenance, or entitled to maintenance at a lesser amount, the learned Family Court shall be at liberty to pass such consequential orders as may be warranted in accordance with law. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 ‘B’/SD/ 2 (2023) 17 SCC 688, paragraph 14. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:15:41