Nishi Dhir v. Ashish Dhir

1. Petitioner has filed a criminal revision petition and assails order dated 16.04.2026, the abovesaid order read as under:- “Matter is fixed for PE as well as for arguments on certain pending applications. Perusal of the record reflects that on 06.02.2025, one last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence (PE). Since then matter has been taken up on 03 occasions, however, petitioner has failed to lead any evidence. Today, petitioner submits that she needs some time to engage a new private counsel. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner is granted one last and final opportunity to lead PE, failing which PE shall be closed by order. At this stage, petitioner has filed a common application (CNR No. DLWT 040002082011) in all the three proceedings/ cases pending today. The same is not type-written. Copy supplied. Vide this application, petitioner prays that respondent Ashish Dhir may be directed to clear the arrears payable towards interim maintenance in terms of orders passed in this petition and in case of default, the divorce proceedings initiated by respondent may be kept in abeyance. In response, Ld counsel for respondent presses her application seeking directions to Bank Head offices of 05 Nationalised Banks and Post Office for providing bank account details in the name of Nishi Dhar under PAN No. AMHPC1072H. This court notes that the application is devoid of bank account details as well as the branch CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 351/2026 2 details. It seems that the respondent is making a fishing and roving inquiry vide this application. Accordingly, Ld counsel has been cautioned that in case no details are provided, this application shall be dismissed with heavy costs. Ld counsel still choses to press further with this application and seeks some time to provide the necessary details. Put up for further proceedings/PE on 14.07.2026. “

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing, submits that the application filed by the respondent should not have been entertained by the learned Trial Court, when it had already given an opinion that it was an attempt to make a fishing and roving inquiry.

3. Fact, however, remains that there is no adjudication of the abovesaid application and the learned Trial Court has, merely, given liberty to the respondent, to come up with requisite details with a caution that, else such application would be dismissed with heavy cost.

4. The abovesaid order is clearly interlocutory order which does not contain any adjudication either and, therefore revision is not maintainable.

5. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

JUDGE JULY 10, 2026/ss/sk