The Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court order directing interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month to a wife and minor daughter, holding that the lower court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the husband who repeatedly failed to file his affidavit of income and assets despite multiple opportunities. The Court also refused to condone a 222-day delay in filing the revision, noting the petitioner's explanation was belied by the record which showed his counsel was present when the impugned order was passed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Satish Pal, challenged an order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the Family Court-1, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in MT No.356/2024. The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000 per month (Rs.10,000 each) to his wife, Kumari Deepak @Damini Pal (respondent no.1), and their minor daughter (respondent no.2) from the date of filing of the application, payable by the 10th of each succeeding calendar month.
Key Facts
- Respondent no.1 filed MT No.356/2024 on 01.07.2024 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, along with an application under Section 125(3) CrPC, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.
- She asserted that the petitioner works as a Sales Executive with Asian Paints and earns Rs.50,000 per month.
- On 05.09.2024, the petitioner appeared with counsel and was directed to file his affidavit of income and assets, along with supporting documents for the last three years, within four weeks. The affidavit was not filed.
- On 28.10.2024, since the affidavit had still not been filed, the petitioner was granted two weeks to file the same, failing which costs of Rs.3,000 were to become payable to respondent no.1. He was meanwhile directed to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to both respondents.
- On 12.12.2024, the petitioner was granted a final opportunity to file the affidavit.
- On 07.02.2025, his opportunity to file the affidavit was closed.
- Additional opportunities to file the affidavit were granted on 23.05.2025 and 30.07.2025. No affidavit was filed on either occasion.
- By the impugned order dated 15.11.2025, the Family Court drew an adverse inference against the petitioner for his failure to file the affidavit, noted non-compliance with the ad-interim order dated 28.10.2024, recorded the petitioner's income at Rs.50,000 per month as asserted by respondent no.1, apportioned the same into five parts, and held the respondents jointly entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month.
Procedural History
- 01.07.2024: MT No.356/2024 filed before Family Court-1, Shahdara under Section 125 CrPC
- 05.09.2024: Petitioner directed to file income affidavit within four weeks
- 28.10.2024: Two weeks' extension granted; ad-interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/month ordered
- 12.12.2024: Final opportunity to file affidavit granted
- 07.02.2025: Opportunity to file affidavit closed
- 23.05.2025: Additional opportunity granted
- 30.07.2025: Further additional opportunity granted
- 15.11.2025: Impugned order passed directing interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/month
- 13.02.2026: Limitation period for filing revision petition expired
- 26.09.2026: Present revision petition (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 651/2026) filed with CRL.M.A.33601/2026 seeking condonation of delay of 222 days
- 28.10.2026: Judgment delivered by Delhi High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) condonation of delay of 222 days in filing the revision petition on the ground that his previous counsel did not inform him of the impugned order; (2) on merits, setting aside the impugned order contending he earns only about Rs.10,000 per month and the figure of Rs.50,000 assumed by the Family Court has no basis.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 222 days in filing the revision petition when the record indicates his counsel was present at the hearing of the impugned order; (2) Whether the Family Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference and proceeding on the wife's assertion of the husband's income when the husband failed to file his affidavit of income and assets despite repeated opportunities; (3) Whether the interim maintenance amount of Rs.20,000 per month warrants interference in revision.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through Mr. Rajbir Singh Sagar, contended that the delay of 222 days should be condoned because his previous counsel did not inform him that the impugned order had been passed on 15.11.2025, and he had no knowledge of the order during the limitation period. On merits, it was argued that the petitioner earns only about Rs.10,000 per month and the figure of Rs.50,000 per month assumed in the impugned order has no evidentiary basis.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not appear. The Court examined the record independently.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first addressed the application for condonation of delay. While acknowledging that courts normally adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach to condonation applications, the Court found the petitioner's explanation belied by the record. The impugned order explicitly records that it was passed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. The plea that the petitioner believed the case to be closed could not be accepted. Further, no affidavit of the previous counsel had been filed, and blame was sought to be fastened upon the previous counsel without any basis.
The Court also noted that the petitioner did not adhere to the ad-interim order dated 28.10.2024 directing payment of Rs.5,000 per month; the default persisted throughout the proceedings and was duly noted by the Family Court. No sufficient cause was therefore shown for condonation of delay.
On merits, the Court observed that despite repeated opportunities (05.09.2024, 28.10.2024, 12.12.2024, 07.02.2025, 23.05.2025, 30.07.2025), the petitioner did not file his affidavit of income and assets before the Family Court. In these circumstances, the Family Court cannot be faulted for drawing an adverse inference and for proceeding on the assertion of respondent no.1 regarding the petitioner's income. The Court found no ground for interference with the impugned order.
However, the Court clarified that it shall be open to the petitioner to file his affidavit of income and assets, with supporting documents, before the learned Family Court and to seek modification of the interim maintenance as may be permissible in law. Any such application shall be considered on its own merits, after hearing respondent no.1.
"The impugned order records that it was passed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. The plea that the petitioner believed the case to be closed cannot be accepted. It is also noticed that no affidavit of the previous counsel has been filed and that blame has been sought to be fastened upon the previous counsel without any basis."
"Despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner did not file his affidavit of income and assets before the learned Family Court. In the circumstances, the learned Family Court cannot be faulted for drawing an adverse inference and for proceeding on the assertion of respondent no.1."
The Verdict
The petitioner failed on both counts. The Court dismissed CRL.M.A.33601/2026 (condonation of delay application) and dismissed the revision petition CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 651/2026. All pending applications were disposed of. The Family Court's order dated 15.11.2025 directing interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month (Rs.10,000 each to wife and minor daughter) from the date of filing of the application (01.07.2024), payable by the 10th of each succeeding calendar month, stands confirmed. The Court clarified the petitioner may file his income affidavit before the Family Court and seek modification of the interim maintenance order, which shall be considered on merits after hearing respondent no.1.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Adverse Inference Is Justified When Litigant Withholds Financial Information
A party who fails to file a mandated affidavit of income and assets despite multiple court directions spanning several months cannot later challenge the court's reliance on the opposing party's assertions. The Delhi High Court affirmed that the Family Court's adverse inference was a legitimate consequence of the petitioner's persistent non-compliance. Practitioners must advise clients that procedural defaults in maintenance proceedings carry substantive evidentiary consequences - the court is entitled to proceed on the best available evidence when a party withholds financial disclosure.
Condonation of Delay Requires Credible Explanation Supported by Record
The Court's refusal to condone a 222-day delay reinforces that liberal approach does not mean automatic condonation. Where the record contradicts the applicant's explanation - here, the order sheet showing counsel's presence at the hearing - the application fails. Lawyers must ensure condonation applications are backed by contemporaneous documentary evidence (e.g., counsel's affidavit, communication records) rather than bare assertions. The petitioner's failure to file his previous counsel's affidavit was fatal.
Interim Maintenance Orders Remain Modifiable Despite Affirmation on Revision
The Court's clarification that the petitioner may still approach the Family Court with his income affidavit for modification preserves the provisional nature of Section 125 orders. An affirmed interim maintenance order is not a final determination of quantum. Practitioners should advise clients that the door for recalibration remains open upon proper disclosure, but the burden shifts to the defaulting party to produce credible financial evidence at the modification stage.
- Actionable takeaway: In Section 125 proceedings, file the income affidavit at the first opportunity; non-compliance invites adverse inference and loss of control over the income narrative.
- Actionable takeaway: For condonation applications, secure the former counsel's affidavit immediately; unsubstantiated blame-shifting fails.
- Actionable takeaway: Even after an adverse revision outcome, a modification application under Section 127 CrPC with proper financial disclosure remains the correct remedial path.
