DHRUV CHAWLA vs EKTA CHAWLA

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 764/2024, CRL.M.A. 17878/2024 & CRL.M.A. 227/2025 DHRUV CHAWLA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Mr. Mayank Dhiyania, Ms. Anjali Chaudhary, Ms Sakshi Gupta, Mr. Kamal, Advocates versus EKTA CHAWLA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal and Mr. Lokesh Raj, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner-husband has challenged the impugned orders dated 21.03.2024 and 23.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟] whereby the application seeking interim maintenance filed by the respondent-wife was allowed. 2. The broad factual matrix of the case is not in dispute between Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 764/2024 Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:08.01.2026 17:49:02 the parties. At the outset, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 and submits that the learned Family Court had expressly stipulated that the grant of interim maintenance was operative only for a period of one year. It is contended that upon expiry of the said period, when the petitioner moved an appropriate application before the learned Family Court, the Court was required either to reconsider the issue of interim maintenance, or to pass a fresh or reasoned order extending or modifying the earlier directions after hearing the parties. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife does not dispute that the interim maintenance was gr