Dubai-Based Husband’s 729-Day-Late Challenge to ₹75,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife and Child Dismissed by Delhi HC

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient grounds to condone the 729-day delay in filing the revision petition

The court held

The Court dismissed the application to condone the 729-day delay and consequently dismissed the revision petition as barred by limitation.

It also directed

It also observed that, even apart from the delay, the petitioner had not made out a case for interference, and disposed of all pending applications.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a Family Court order dated 24 May 2024 directing him to pay maintenance of ₹75,000 per month to the respondents, his wife and minor child, from 21 December 2021.

¶ 1–2 · p. 1

Although he had filed a reply before the Family Court, he was proceeded ex parte after neither he nor his counsel appeared.

¶ 4 · p. 2

He filed the revision petition after a delay of 729 days, attributing the delay to physical and mental health problems and work responsibilities in Dubai.

¶ 5 · p. 2

The Court noted that his affidavit, verified in Dubai on 13 December 2025, showed that he knew of the maintenance order and its execution proceedings, and disclosed a monthly salary of AED 29,889.

¶ 8–9 · p. 3, 18

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient grounds to condone the 729-day delay in filing the revision petition

¶ 5–10 · pp. 2, 18–19

ii.Whether, even otherwise, the petitioner made out a case for interference with the Family Court’s maintenance order, including on the ground that his wife was qualified and capable of earning

¶ 11 · pp. 19–20

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Sections 438 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to challenge an order made on an application under Section 125 CrPC.

¶ 1 · p. 1

The Court assessed the delay-condonation application against the petitioner’s explanation and supporting material, including whether it adequately accounted for the delay.

¶ 5–7 · p. 2

On maintenance, the Court applied Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324: a wife’s capacity to earn, or the fact that she earns, does not by itself bar maintenance; the court must consider whether her income is sufficient to maintain herself in light of the relevant circumstances.

¶ 11 · pp. 19–20

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125

04Reasoning

The Court found the petitioner’s assertions of illness and work-related responsibilities to be bald and unsupported by cogent material; the medical records were incomplete and did not establish that he was unable to take the necessary steps to challenge the order.

¶ 5–7 · p. 2

His December 2025 affidavit showed that he knew of the maintenance award and its execution, yet the petition was filed only after a further delay; the Court also considered his failure to participate in the Family Court proceedings after filing his reply.

¶ 8–10 · pp. 3, 18–19

These circumstances did not justify condoning the delay.

¶ 8–10 · pp. 3, 18–19

On the merits, the Court rejected the contention that the wife’s qualification and capacity to earn, standing alone, defeated her claim to maintenance, consistent with Rajnesh v. Neha.

¶ 11 · pp. 19–20