Delhi High Court
Aseem Rajpal vs Divya Duggal on 15 April, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:15th April, 2025
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025, CRL.M.A. 11200/2025,
CRL.M.A. 11201/2025
ASEEM RAJPAL .....Petitioner
Through: Counsel for Petitioner (appearance
not given).
versus
DIVYA DUGGAL .....Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438/442 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed to challenge the Order
dated 19.12.2024 vide which the learned Principal District & Sessions
Judge, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi has set aside the
Order of learned J.M.F.C., Mahila Court-2, North West District,
Rohini Court, Delhi and granted interim maintenance to Respondent/
Divya Duggal in the sum of Rs.15,000/- per month under Section 12
read with Section 23 of Protection of Women against Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act“).
2. Respondent/Divya Duggal filed a Complaint under Section 12
read with Section 23 DV Act.
3. It was stated in the Complaint that the parties got married on
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
08.11.2019 at Hotel City Park, Pitampura, Delhi in accordance with
Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner/Aseem Rajpal herein was a
B.Com graduate and held a Diploma in FrankFinn course and was
engaged in the business of music instruments and owned at least four
ancestral Music Shops in Chandni Chowk.
4. Apart from this, Petitioner was doing a business of lemon grass
in the name of M/s. Dew Fresh Green Tea. The Respondent (wife)
asserted that the Petitioner had an income of not less than Rs.2.5 lakhs
per month.
5. The Respondent in her Complaint further stated that she was
doing BBA from Kurukshetra University and MBA through distance
education from Manipal University. She was residing with her
widowed mother at the house of her brother at Gurugram. She claimed
to be incurring an expenditure of about Rs.1 lakh per month which
included her personal maintenance and petrol expenses of the car. She
further asserted that litigation expenses of Rs.2.5 lakhs in all the cases
have been incurred by her. The Respondent claimed that she was
unemployed but had FDRs of about Rs.5 lakhs approximately which
had been gifted to her, by her parents/grandparents.
6. The Petitioner (husband) herein has contended that the
Respondent is residing with her mother at Gurugram and is
maintaining a lavish lifestyle. She has a lavish car and is also deriving
income from her FDRs and savings bank account. As per the ITR of
the Respondent for the year 2021-22, she has an yearly income of
Rs.98,520/- which is more than the annual income of the Petitioner,
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
who was working as a DJ (Disco Jockey) and was earning Rs.8000-
10,000/- per month. The Petitioner herein has suffered losses in his
business in the year 2016-17, which has not flourished thereafter.
7. It is, therefore, prayed that the Respondent is not entitled to the
interim maintenance and the impugned Order be set aside.
8. The learned J.M.F.C. vide Order dated 05.09.2024 observed
that though the Respondent had claimed her monthly expenditure to
be Rs.1 lakh, but has not given any details to explain this expenditure.
She had claimed that she was unemployed, but it was not clear as to
how she was maintaining her expenses. The possibility of
exaggeration of her monthly expenses thus, could not be overruled.
9. The learned J.M.F.C. further observed that apparently both the
parties come from affluent and upper class and it was not reasonable
to assume that the Respondent would have agreed to marry the
Petitioner knowing that he was only a Disco Jockey. It was further
observed that Respondent had failed to explain her reason for
unemployment despite being qualified. Consequently, interim
maintenance was declined to the Respondent vide Order dated
05.09.2024.
10. Aggrieved by the Order of learned J.M.F.C., an Appeal under
Section 29 D.V. Act was filed by the Respondent before learned
Sessions Judge who considered the rival contentions and took the
earnings of the Petitioner as Rs.50,000/- per month and directed
payment of interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month to the Respondent.
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
11. The Petitioner aggrieved by this Order of learned Sessions
Judge dated 19.11.2024 granting Interim Maintenance, has filed the
present Petition.
12. The impugned Order has been challenged on the ground that
the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly presumed the income of the
Petitioner as Rs.50,000/- per month without assessing his income as
well as considering his income affidavit. Furthermore, some facts
have been admitted by the Respondent in her Income Affidavit, which
shows that she is maintaining herself and has a good source of
income.
13. Moreover, Respondent is an educated woman who has done
BBA as well as MBA. During her studies for a short period, she had
done internship with Mc.Donald’s for six months and had worked
with ICICI bank for about one year and was getting a salary of
Rs.10,000/- per month. It has not been considered that Respondent has
independent source of income as has been mentioned in her detailed
income affidavit.
14. Moreover, she has not given the details of her expenses of Rs.1
lakh per month. If she is unemployed, then there is no explanation as
to how she is meeting her monthly expenses. Moreover, she is
maintaining Maruti Suzuki SX4 car and also meeting all the petrol
expenses. Further, she is claiming Rs.2,50,000/- per litigation
expenses which further reflect her source of income.
15. Her ITR for the year 2021-22 reflect that she is getting an
interest from the FDRs worth Rs.5 lakhs and has Rs.1,10,724/- in her
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
saving bank account.
16. Moreover, the Respondent had alleged in her Complaint under
Section 12 D.V. Act that her parents had spent about Rs.1 crore in the
marriage which reflects that the Respondent comes from an affluent
family background.
17. Moreover, they have lakhs of rupees as monthly rental income
from the parental factory-cum-residence at G.T. Karnal Road. They
have a luxurious bungalow at Sushant Lok, Gurugram apart from a
plot in Panipat. She also owns a Flat but has intentionally not
disclosed her complete income.
18. The Petitioner has admitted that he had started a new online
business of selling Green Tea, Essential Oil in the name of Dew Fresh
Greens in the year 2015-16, but has asserted that the business failed
and he had to close it down.
19. Moreover, the documents relied upon by the Respondent to
reflect the business and the income of the Petitioner, are based on
Google documents uploaded in the year 2015-16 at the time when he
started the business, but there are no other documents like GST, bank
statement, ITR of Petitioner to show that he has the monthly income
as claimed by the Respondent.
20. Furthermore, the Model Town property is undivided family
property having 52 legal heirs. The Petitioner is not residing in a
lavish bungalow, but only on the second floor of the property along
with his parents in a two room set. The other portions of the Model
Town property are in the occupation of the cousin brothers and the
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
relatives.
21. The Petitioner does not have multiple Music Shops in Chandni
Chowk. Many of the shops are in the power and possession of other
family members and there is no income, either rental or otherwise,
from these shops. Rather there are multiple civil litigations ongoing in
regard to the shops.
22. Furthermore, Petitioner has no Audi car, but it belongs to his
younger brother, Ankit Rajpal who lives in Dubai as is evident from
the RC of the car. The Petitioner claimed that he has no income from
the businesses as alleged by the Respondent and the Order granting
interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is liable to be recalled.
23. Submissions heard and record perused.
24. The Petitioner has multiple shops and businesses, though
according to him they all are in joint possession and there are multiple
litigations pending against them. According to the Respondent herself,
her parents had spent more than Rs.1 crore in the wedding.
25. It has been rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge that
it was evident that both the parties are not coming forward with their
exact income, but it was clear that both the families are apparently
having an affluent background and a good standard of living.
26. While the Petitioner has tried to portray that he is a pauper who
has no independent source of income except an income of about
Rs.10,000-15,000/- per month from working as a Disco Jockey, but
looking at the background, and that he maintains an Audi car though
in the name of his brother (who is a resident of Dubai), the claim of
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
the Petitioner in regard to his income is not tenable.
27. The learned Sessions Judge had rightly assessed his income, on
the conservative side, as Rs.50,000/- per month.
28. The Respondent may be qualified, but it cannot be overlooked
that she has done her MBA through a Distance Education programme.
Furthermore, there is no document or assertion to show that
Respondent had ever been in employment. Merely because she has
acquired qualifications, cannot be a sole factor to observe that she is
educated and capable to earn and therefore, not entitled to
maintenance.
29. The situation would have been different had she been employed
earlier but left her job after the disputes arose between the parties.
There is nothing to show that she is employed or is having any income
from her vocation.
30. Furthermore, she may be having an amount of about Rs.5 lakhs
in her FDR or about Rs.1 lakh in her bank account, but definitely this
is not sufficient for her to maintain her day-to-day expenses. Even if it
is accepted that there are no details of claimed monthly expenditure,
but definitely Rs.15,000/- per month which has been granted for her
day-to-day expenses, cannot be considered as excessive.
31. There is no infirmity in the Order of learned Sessions Judge and
the present Petition along with Application(s) is hereby, dismissed.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
APRIL 15, 2025/rk
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 165/2025 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:VIKAS ARORA
Signing Date:17.04.2025
18:24:44
[ad_1]
Source link