Shri Tarun Jain Vs Smt Neena Jain and Ors.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’ ) corresponding to Sections 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C. ’) challenging the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Maintenance Petition No. 365/2019 titled Neena Jain & Ors Vs. Tarun Jain under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was solemnised on 27.04.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs and the parties have been living separately since 24.05.2017. Two daughters, namely Ms. Moli Jain and Ms. Yashika Jain, were born out of the wedlock. He submits that initially, vide order dated

¶12

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 13/07/2026 at 16:12:09

¶13

01.10.2019, ad interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month was granted, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2025.

¶14

He further submits that the petitioner is presently not working and is suffering from various medical ailments. According to him, the petitioner is suffering from hernia and, due to financial constraints, has been unable to undergo surgery. It is also submitted that the petitioner had earlier suffered an accident resulting in a fracture in his right foot and, therefore, is unable to stand for long hours. It is his further submission that respondent no.1 is independently earning, as she is running an online business of bedsheets under the name ‘ Bichhona_handloom’, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the learned Family Court.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

¶16

So far as the medical documents relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, a bare perusal thereof reveals that the petitioner is undergoing treatment in a Government Hospital, for which he is not required to spend any money, including for the hernia operation. Therefore, his plea of having no money to undergo the said operation does not merit acceptance.

¶17

As regards the submission that respondent no.1 is running an online business under the name ‘Bichhona_handloom’ , merely because the name of respondent no.1 appears in the screenshot of instagram page of ‘Bichhona_handloom’, no presumption can be drawn that the business is being run by respondent no.1. Merely because she is running the business is no ground to presume that she is earning in lakhs. The said screenshot has been reproduced hereinbelow:

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 13/07/2026 at 16:12:09

¶20

The petitioner is an able-bodied person aged about 45 years. It is an admitted position that two daughters have been born out of the wedlock, who are of growing age and, besides requiring nutritious food and clothing, also require proper education and other necessities for their overall development. 9. The learned Family Court has also recorded that the petitioner owns shops, earns approximately Rs.50,000/- per month from his business of sale

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 13/07/2026 at 16:12:09

¶23

and purchase of paper and also has a share in the rental income derived from five shops situated on the ground floor of the matrimonial home. Despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner utterly failed to file his Income and Assets Affidavit or any supporting documents. The only inference that can reasonably be drawn from such conduct is that the petitioner deliberately withheld his affidavit and documents to conceal his income and deprive the respondents of their legitimate entitlement to maintenance.

¶24

The learned Family Court has further rightly observed that the petitioner, being an able-bodied male and a resident of Delhi, can reasonably be presumed to be earning a good income. It has also been observed that the petitioner and his family own a sizeable property at Jagat Puri, where admittedly the ground floor has been let out as shops. It is a matter of common knowledge that Jagat Puri is almost entirely commercialised and there are several shops on rent in the area, the owners whereof derive substantial rental income.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶26

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶27

Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶29

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶30

JULY 8, 2026/ ys/Av

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 13/07/2026 at 16:12:09

Shri Tarun Jain v. Smt Neena Jain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Tarun Jain v. Smt Neena Jain and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niket Tiwari Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sh Amrish Tyagi & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi

Tanya Arjun Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kailash Chand Rawat and Anr. Vs State of Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Mubashira Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shahid Khan Vs M/S Golden Katha Industries