Mohd. Tayyab vs Farheen

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Feb 26, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1257655

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1257655
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Decided On: Feb 26, 2026
Case Number: CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/121/2026
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Contract

Key legal issue: Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Tayyab

Advocate Mr. Parmeet Singh

Respondent

Farheen

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi+ crl.rev.p.(mat.) 121/2026 & crl.m.a. 6446-6447/2026mohd. tayyab .....petitioner through: mr. parmeet singh, advocate.versusfarheen .....respondent through: none.coram:hon’ble mr. justice prateek jalanorder% 26.02.20261. by way of this petition, the petitioner assails an order dated12.01.2026, by which the family court has summoned income tax records of the petitioner in proceedings under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.2. mr. parmeet singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends thatthe said evidence has been summoned at a belated stage, when the matter was scheduled for final arguments. he submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that, if the evidence is to be re-opened, he should also be permitted to place on record a fresh affidavit of assets and liabilities, as the petitioner’s liabilities have increased since the last affidavit filed by him.3. after some arguments, mr. singh submits that he would besatisfied with the opportunity to file an application before the family court to bring on record subsequent developments.crl.rev.p.(mat.) 121/2026 page 1 of 24. the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudiceto the above submission on behalf of the petitioner.5. it is made clear that notice has not yet been issued to therespondent, and this court has not made any observations on the merits of the proposed application, which is for the family court to decide in accordance with law.6. the petition is disposed of.prateek jalan, jfebruary 26, 2026‘pv’/ad/crl.rev.p.(mat.) 121/2026 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 121/2026 & CRL.M.A. 6446-6447/2026

MOHD. TAYYAB .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parmeet Singh, Advocate.

versus

FARHEEN .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

ORDER

% 26.02.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner assails an order dated

12.01.2026, by which the Family Court has summoned income tax records of the petitioner in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Mr. Parmeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that

the said evidence has been summoned at a belated stage, when the matter was scheduled for final arguments. He submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that, if the evidence is to be re-opened, he should also be permitted to place on record a fresh affidavit of assets and liabilities, as the petitioner’s liabilities have increased since the last affidavit filed by him.

3. After some arguments, Mr. Singh submits that he would be

satisfied with the opportunity to file an application before the Family Court to bring on record subsequent developments.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 121/2026 Page 1 of 2

4. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice

to the above submission on behalf of the petitioner.

5. It is made clear that notice has not yet been issued to the

respondent, and this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the proposed application, which is for the Family Court to decide in accordance with law.

6. The petition is disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J

FEBRUARY 26, 2026

‘pv’/AD/

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 121/2026 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Mohd. Tayyab vs Farheen Same Subject Contract Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan