$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010441532026 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 552/2026 and CRL.M.A. 28842-28843/2026 SUNIL YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar and Mr. Udit Malik, Advocates. versus ANITA YADAV .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The revision petition assails the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Family Court, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the application of the respondent for interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month with effect from 21.09.2020, along with Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses and to clear the arrears within six months. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the income of the petitioner came to be fixed at Rs. 95,000/- per month on the basis of salary slips pertaining to July, August and September, 2022, although the impugned order was passed nearly three years thereafter and that his current income, deductions and liabilities were neither called for nor considered. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner maintains his widowed 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 21/09/2026 at 11:07:09 mother. He also pays Rs. 15,000/- per month towards the separate accommodation of the respondent, as arranged at her instance and voluntarily pays her Rs. 6,000/- per month. He is also contesting proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as well as a criminal case. It is submitted that these financial obligations were not considered. The respondent is stated to be educated and gainfully employed. It is thus submitted that the direction to clear nearly five years of arrears within six months is onerous. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that at the present stage, the petitioner is willing to explore an amicable settlement. He, therefore, requests that the matter be remitted to the concerned Court for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record. 6. The record would indicate that the parties were married on 23.11.2017 and that no child was born of the said wedlock. The respondent instituted the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 21.09.2020. The Family Court, upon a consideration of the affidavits of income filed by both the parties, noticed that the petitioner is working as a Senior Credit Analyst with American Express, took his income at Rs. 95,000/- per month on the strength of his salary slips and noticed the total salary of the respondent to be Rs. 12,905/- per month. Apart from the said proceedings, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the execution petition aforesaid, are stated to be pending between the parties. 7. The disputes between the parties are, thus, multifarious, and have 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 21/09/2026 at 11:07:09 been pending since the year 2020. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa1, the Supreme Court, while issuing directions with respect to matrimonial disputes, has held as under: “(a) In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes through mediation.” 8. In view of the aforesaid and of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner, the Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition with a direction to the concerned Court to explore the possibility of mediation. 9. Let the steps for mediation be taken and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. 10. Needless to state that, if the mediation fails, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh revision petition against the impugned order. The period spend in mediation shall not be reckoned for the purpose of fresh revision. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and the liberty granted, the present revision petition stands disposed of, along with the pending applications, if any. It is clarified that this order shall not tantamount to a stay of the impugned order. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 Nc 1 (2013) 5 SCC 226 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 21/09/2026 at 11:07:09