The court ruled that past communications unrelated to active maintenance issues do not warrant inquiry, emphasizing the necessity of focus on the child's welfare.

O R D E R

% 28.08.2025 CRL.M.A. 25676/2025 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 397/2025

1. Petitioner is before this Court for setting aside the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in MT No.592/2023 titled as Baby Mysha through Latika Katyal vs. Himanshu Budhiraja, whereby the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C./ 94 BNSS filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner, Himanshu Budhiraja, married the respondent, Ms. Latika Katyal, on 12.02.2016, and a daughter was born on 17.12.2019. Due to matrimonial discord, the respondent left with the child on 22.11.2020, leading to several litigations until a mutual settlement on 09.05.2023, followed by a divorce decree on 09.06.2023. The petitioner alleges that during the disputes, the respondent caused him loss of livelihood by sending a defamatory email on 24.03.2021 to his employer, which led to his resignation. To establish this conduct, he sought production of the said email CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 397/2025 Page 1 of 5 under Section 94 BNSS. However, the Family Court dismissed his application on 29.04.2025, ignoring the relevance of the email. Aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Family Court committed grave errors while disposing of the application under Section 94 BNSS. Despite the Petitioner specifically pleading the exact date of the email communication as 24.03.2021, the Court erroneously recorded confusion on the Respondent’s part and failed to record her statement on solemn affirmation or under Order 10 CPC. The Court also ignored the significance of the said email, which had directly caused the Petitioner’s loss of employment and livelihood, even as the Respondent simultaneously claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground of his unemployment.

4. It is further argued that the Court failed to secure disclosure of the Respondent’s financial documents, including ITRs, GST returns, balance sheets, and bank statements of her business entities, and accepted an incomplete and illegible Income and Asset Affidavit without ensuring compliance. Such omissions show a mechanical disposal of the application, reflecting non-application of mind and defeating the object of Section 94 BNSS. The Petitioner clarifies that he is not seeking any stay of proceedings but only challenges the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, seeking a fair opportunity to prove his case. The relief sought would not prejudice the Respondent, as it merely requires her to affirm or deny on affidavit whether she sent the said email to the Petitioner’s employer, along with its date and contents.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 397/2025 Page 2 of 5

5. In the aforesaid backdrop I have heard the rival contention of the petitioner and perused the case file.

6. Before proceedings further, impugned order dated 29.04.2025 be seen which for ease of reference has been reproduced herein below :-

“Ld. counsel for petitioner has filed reply to application under Section 91 Cr.P.C./ under Section 94 of BNSS and income affidavit with documents, as per Index. Copies supplied.

The respondent submits that he has filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C./ under Section 94 of BNSS for seeking the e-mails and contents of the letter sent by the mother of petitioner to the employer of respondent in the year 2021 and he is confused whether it was done in the month of March, 2021 or prior thereto or thereafter.

It is submit