CRL.M.C. 7028/2026 $~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010448812026 + CRL.M.C. 7028/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29342/2026, CRL.M.A. 29343/2026 AMIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddhant Gautam, Mr. Brij Lal, Mr. Vivek Vishal Gautam, Advs. versus PRIYA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 21.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is being preferred by the Petitioner, challenging the impugned order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in MT Case No. 105/2025 titled Priya v. Amit Kumar. The petition arises out of the maintenance proceedings initiated by the Respondent under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. 3. The relevant paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. Reverting to the present matter, the fact of husband-wife relationship between petitioner and 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:54 CRL.M.C. 7028/2026 respondent not disputed. It is also not disputed that since separation the petitioner is residing with her father. None of the party has filed ITRs on the ground that they are not income tax assessee. However, parties have filed their income affidavit alongwith bank statements. The facts whether the petitioner is working anywhere for gain, or if the respondent is residing in rental accommodation are matter of trial. The respondent has not placed on record material regarding his true income. Thus, in these circumstances this court is left with no alternative but to fix the income of the respondent on the basis of some guess work. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and status of parties in this matter, respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to petitioner for her personal necessities from the date of filing of this application till final disposal of the present petition. The respondent/husband directed to clear arrears of maintenance within two months. It is made clear that monthly payment shall be made on or before 7th day of each calendar month or may be deposited directly in the bank account of the petitioner/wife (to be provided, if not mentioned earlier). The amount of maintenance received by the petitioner and in this case or under any other proceedings is liable to be adjusted. The application stand disposed of accordingly. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:54 CRL.M.C. 7028/2026 failed to appreciate that the respondent is a qualified and gainfully employed person earning approximately ₹30,000/- per month, despite electronic evidence regarding her employment. It is further submitted that the respondent concealed her employment and bank account and falsely portrayed the amount received from the library as a borrowed amount. Learned counsel submits that, in contrast, the petitioner earns only ₹8,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month from temporary event-management work, as reflected in his income affidavit and bank statements, and is also liable to pay ₹3,300/- towards rent. 5. It is contended that the learned Trial Court, without adequately considering these circumstances, assessed the petitioner’s income on the basis of guesswork and directed payment of ₹12,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Accordingly, setting aside of the impugned order or, alternatively, fresh adjudication of the issue of interim maintenance is sought. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The contention that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance merely because she is educationally qualified cannot be accepted. Her educational qualification, by itself, does not establish that she is gainfully employed and earning a sufficient income. 7. The bank account relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the year 2009. Mere existence of such an account, without any material to show its present operation or income, cannot establish concealment of present financial resources by the respondent. 8. The audio recording and its transcription relied upon by the petitioner may indicate that the respondent was interacting at Samaay Yaan Library; however, the same, by itself, does not conclusively establish her employment or the alleged income of ₹30,000/- per month. These are disputed questions 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:54 CRL.M.C. 7028/2026 of fact which require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. 9. The issues regarding the respondent's alleged employment and income, the bank account relied upon by the petitioner, and the petitioner's actual earning capacity are matters for determination by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence. At this stage, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. 10. The present petition, along with the pending applications, is dismissed. The observations herein shall not prejudice the parties before the learned Trial Court. 11. The order will be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/ys/rm 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:54