The court emphasized the need for family courts to consider actual financial circumstances when modifying maintenance orders, especially during economic hardships like a pandemic.

O R D E R

CRL.M.A. 27559/2024 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CRL.M.A. 27560/2024 By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘ BNSS ’), the petitioner seeks condonation of about 23 days’ delay in re-filing the petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

4. The petition is taken on Board.

CRL.REV.P. 1133/2024

5. By way of the present petition filed under sections 438/442 read with section 528 of the BNSS , the petitioner impugns order dated CRL.REV.P.1133/2024 Page1of3

30.04.2024 made by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi dismissing his application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), by which the petitioner had sought modification of orders dated 28.04.2014 and 14.11.2019 granting maintenance to respondents Nos.1 to 3, who are respectively the wife and 02 children of the petitioner.

6. Ms. Payal Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that by way of the application under section 127 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had sought waiver of the maintenance amount payable for the period during which his income had dipped by reason of the then prevailing pandemic.

7. Ms. Chawla however submits, that the learned Family Court has omitted to consider that reality with any seriousness. In fact, she submits that the court has proceeded to hold that the income affidavit filed by the petitioner is not reliable and does not show his actual income since he is a self-employed person and in such cases tax compliance is an exception and tax avoidance is the norm.

8. Ms. Chawla submits, that the learned Family Court has failed to notice that certain remittances received in the petitioner’s account were by way of sale of fixed assets and shares, which cannot be counted towards his monthly income.

9. Ms. Chawla further points-out, that in a connected matter which arose from a section 127 Cr.P.C. application filed by the respondents, which was challenged by the petitioner before this court, vide order dated 03.09.2024 made in CRL.REV.P. No.1097/2024, this court has stayed the operation of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Family CRL.REV.P.1133/2024 Page2of3 Court to the extent that it had enhanced the rate of maintenance from Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.20,000/- per month, subject to the petitioner paying to the respondents the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month plus a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards past arrears, if any.

10. Issue notice.

11. Upon the petitioner taking requisite steps, let notice be sent to the respondents by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.

12. Let the notice indicate that reply to the petition be filed within 06 weeks of service; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.

13. Re-notify alongwith CRL.REV.P. No. 1097/2024 on 16th December 2024