In a ruling delivered on September 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court stayed a family court order that had awarded ₹4,400 per month in maintenance to a minor daughter who, according to her father, has been living with him since his separation from her mother. The High Court's decision, however, allows the monthly maintenance of ₹4,400 each for the wife and the son to continue.

The case, Virender Siwach v. Soni Siwach & Ors., CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 562/2026, was heard by Justice Madhu Jain. The petitioner, Virender Siwach, challenged an ex parte order dated October 8, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in MT Case No. 321/2022, which had awarded maintenance to all three respondents: his wife, his minor son, and his minor daughter.

Background: Marriage, Divorce, and Maintenance Claim

The marriage between Virender Siwach and Soni Siwach was solemnised on June 20, 2014. Two children were born from the marriage: a daughter on September 18, 2015, and a son on July 26, 2016. On July 13, 2020, Virender instituted divorce proceedings before the Family Court at Maham, Rohtak, Haryana. Those proceedings culminated in a decree of divorce on September 20, 2024.

Meanwhile, Soni Siwach and the two children filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the Family Court at Karkardooma Courts, seeking maintenance of ₹30,000 per month. Virender did not appear before the Family Court, and was proceeded ex parte on November 22, 2022. The Family Court, after recording the evidence of Soni Siwach, passed the impugned ex parte order on October 8, 2025, awarding maintenance of ₹4,400 per month to each of the three respondents.

Virender then filed a revision petition before the Delhi High Court, along with applications for condonation of delay and stay. The delay of 237 days in filing the revision was condoned by the High Court. Virender also filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which is pending before the Family Court.

The Core Dispute: Daughter's Residence

The key issue before the High Court was whether the minor daughter, respondent no. 3, has been residing with the petitioner/father since the parties separated. Virender's counsel argued that respondent no. 3 has been living with him, and relied on her Aadhaar card and a certificate issued by her school to support this claim. Despite this, the Family Court had awarded maintenance to her as well.

Virender also pointed out that his wife had filed an execution petition, Ex.Crl./694/2025, on behalf of all respondents, including the daughter, to enforce the maintenance order. That execution proceeding is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts.

On September 21, 2026, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting that there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents, the High Court observed that the daughter had been arrayed as a proforma respondent in the revision petition, and, as per the father's case, has been residing with him. Given the documents relied upon, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned order, insofar as it grants maintenance to respondent no. 3, shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing. Consequently, the execution proceedings in Ex.Crl./694/2025 shall also remain stayed to that extent.

The maintenance awarded to respondent nos. 1 and 2 under the impugned order shall continue.

The Court also issued notice in the revision petition and in the application seeking stay of execution proceedings, returnable on October 8, 2026. It directed the electronic Trial Court Record (e-TCR) to be requisitioned before the next date of hearing. The Court clarified that its observations are only prima facie in nature and shall have no bearing on the final adjudication of the petition.

What This Means for Maintenance Cases

This interim order highlights a common problem in maintenance litigation: ex parte orders passed when one party does not appear. Here, the father did not appear before the Family Court, which then awarded maintenance based on the wife's evidence. When he later challenged the order, the High Court found prima facie merit in his claim that one of the children lives with him, and stayed maintenance for that child.

The case also shows how procedural rules matter. The revision was filed with a delay of 237 days, which the High Court condoned. The petitioner also sought to place additional documents on record, including the daughter's Aadhaar card and school certificate, which the Court allowed under Section 432 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

For families caught in similar disputes, the takeaway is clear: maintenance orders can be challenged, but you must act quickly and provide evidence. The High Court's decision to continue maintenance for the wife and son while staying it for the daughter underscores that each claimant's situation is examined individually.

"Prima facie, in view of the documents relied upon by the petitioner regarding the residence of respondent no.3 with him, the operation of the impugned order, insofar as it grants maintenance to respondent no.3, is directed to remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing."

The next hearing is scheduled for October 8, 2026. Until then, Virender Siwach must continue paying ₹4,400 per month each to his wife and son, totaling ₹8,800 per month. The maintenance for his daughter remains paused.

This case is a reminder that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023) are meant to prevent destitution, but they must be based on accurate facts. When a child's residence is disputed, courts will look at documentary evidence like Aadhaar cards and school records. The Delhi High Court's interim order ensures that the father is not forced to pay maintenance for a child who may already be in his care, while protecting the rights of the wife and son.

Legal experts often note that ex parte orders can be set aside if the absent party shows sufficient cause. Here, the father's application to set aside the ex parte order is pending before the Family Court. The High Court's decision to stay maintenance for the daughter is an interim measure, and the final outcome will depend on the evidence presented.

For now, the Delhi High Court's order brings temporary relief to Virender Siwach regarding his daughter's maintenance, but the larger battle over maintenance amounts and the setting aside of the ex parte order continues.