Sunil Kumar Jangir vs Juhi Singh Bansiwal & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010511112026
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026, CRL.M.A. Nos.33362/2026,
33364/2026, 33365/2026
SUNIL KUMAR JANGIR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajender Kumar and Mr.
Ashwani Jangid, Advocates.
versus
JUHI SINGH BANSIWAL & ANR. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 & CRL.M.A. No.33363/2026 (seeking
condonation of delay of 729 days in filing the petition)
1. The present revision petition under Section 438 read with Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, assails a
judgment/order dated 24.05.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court-
02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MT No.902/2021.
2. By way of the said judgment, a petition filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. by the respondent nos.1 and 2 was allowed and the petitioner was
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month to the respondents
with effect from the date of registration of the petition i.e., 21.12.2021. The
arrears from 21.12.2021 upto 31.05.2024 were to be cleared within nine
months from the date of the order i.e. 25.05.2024 and thereafter, from the
month of June 2024, the maintenance was to be paid on or before the
seventh day of each month.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 1 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
3. Although the petition describes the impugned order as one of interim
maintenance, the impugned order disposes of the petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C along with any pending applications.
4. The petitioner, who is stated to reside in Dubai, filed his reply before
the Family Court. However, he was proceeded ex-parte from 22.12.2023
inasmuch as neither he nor his counsel appeared. The same has been duly
recorded in the impugned order dated 24.05.2024.
5. The period of limitation for filing the present petition has long
expired. The application i.e. , CRL.M.A. No.33363/2026 seeks condonation
of delay of 729 days in filing the present revision petition. The only
explanation given is as under:
“3. It is submitted that the revisionist has suffering many medical
problems disease seviour back pain and mental disease since past
2 years and revisionis get treatement in dubai and due to these
mental health problem revisionist is in very depressed . Due to all
of these he could not consult with the new counsels he wants to
engage for the present petition to challenge the impugned order
dated 24.05.2024 before this hon'ble Court.
4. It is submitted that the delay in filing of the present petition is
neither intenional nor deliberate and the condonation of delay
shall not prejudice the right/title or interest of the petitioner.
5. That the revisionist is resident in dubai and he has burdened
with a lot of day to day his office responsibilities and his physical
and mental health is not good.”
6. The aforesaid averments are bald averments unsupported by any
cogent material.
7. The medical records sought to be relied upon are inchoate. In any
event, they do not reveal that the petitioner was unable to take requisite
steps, much less does it afford an adequate explanation for the extraordinary
delay that has taken place.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 2 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
8. Importantly, a perusal of the documents attached at Annexure P-4 to
the present petition reveal that the petitioner has himself filed an affidavit of
assets and liabilities, verified at Dubai on 13.12.2025. The same affidavit
was filed by the petitioner in a Complaint Case pending between the
petitioner and respondent no. 1 before the learned JMFC, Mahila Court, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi. The affidavit reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 3 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 4 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 5 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 6 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 7 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 8 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 9 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 10 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 11 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 12 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 13 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 14 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 15 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 16 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 17 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
9. It is noticed that the petitioner himself stated in the aforesaid affidavit
dated 13.12.2025 that maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month has been
awarded against him; that he has paid Rs.4 Lakhs and that Rs.26 Lakhs was
pending. It was also disclosed that the execution proceedings are pending
for the same. In the same affidavit, the petitioner disclosed that the
petitioner is employed at Dubai and is earning a salary of AED 29,889 ( i.e.,
Rs.7,32,280/-) per month.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the application for condonation of delay. The exacerbating
circumstances are as follows: (i) the delay of over two years in challenging
the impugned order awarding maintenance to his wife and the minor child;
(ii) the absence of any particulars of the alleged illness that the petitioner is
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 18 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
suffering from or the date when the impugned judgment came to the
knowledge of the petitioner; (iii) the petitioner’s own affidavit (reproduced
above) showing knowledge of the judgment and of its execution at least as
of December, 2025; and (iv) his conduct in not participating before the
learned Family court after filing his reply.
11. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not make out a case for
interference. The plea that the wife is qualified and capable of earning is by
itself no ground to deny the relief of maintenance. This has been held in the
case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. In the said judgment, the
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar
from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided
guidance on this issue in the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 :
(2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in
P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] ,
this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not
be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable
her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the
matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be
allowed to mean mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC
OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ 3451]
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil
Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in
Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient
income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The
Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife
was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale
[Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694]
while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil
Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
589] , held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 19 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21
wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he
is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the
Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila
Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the
husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to
show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal
obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the
exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v.
Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri)
785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani,
1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the
obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal
than the wife .”
12. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
The present petition is also consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/r
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 642/2026 Page 20 of 20
Digitally Signed
By:CHINU LUTHRA
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:13:21