Delhi District Court
Hari Krishan Sharma vs Deepali Sharma on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. Appeal No. 170/2023
under Section 29 D.V. Act
Hari Kishan Sharma
S/o Late Malook Chand Sharma
R/o H. No. 111, New Lahore,
Shastri Nagar, near SDM Ofice,
Delhi-110031.
.... Appellant
Versus.
Deepali Sharma
W/o Late Vimal Sharma
D/o Sh. Suman Kumar Sharma
R/o H. No. 255, New Layalpur,
Chander Nagar, Delhi-110051.
... Respondent
Date of filing : 11.09.2023
Date of Arguments : 12.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025
Appellant represented by : Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Rajesh
Yadav.
Respondent represented by : Ld. Counsel Sh. Anil Babbar.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this court shall decide a Criminal
Appeal filed by the Appellant-Father-in-law under Section
29 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (hereinafter be referred as “DV Act) against the order
dated 09.08.2023 (hereinafter be referred to as the
“impugned order”) passed by the court of Ld. MM (Mahila
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.1/17
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:32:50 +0530
Court-01) (Shahdara) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial
Court’) in CT Case bearing No. 1624/2021 titled as Deepali
Sharma Vs. Hari Krishna Sharma and Ors.
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that
complainant (Respondent herein) had filed an application u/s
12/18/19/20 & 22 of D.V. Act along with application u/s
23(2) DV Act against her father-in-law Hari Krishna Sharma
(Appellant herein), mother-in-law Rekha Sharma and sister-
in-law Ruchika Sharma, wherein she has stated that her
marriage was solemnized with deceased son of appellant on
20.04.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs at New Delhi and
parents of complainant spent Rs.10-12 lakh in the marriage;
that respondents were not happy with the articles given by
parents of complainant in the marriage; that after marriage,
the respondents had continuously harassed the complainant
and tortured her to give money to them; that ultimately in
June 2019, complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial
home by her in-laws and since then she has been residing in
her parental house; that all gold and silver jewellery articles,
istridhan and all documents are still in the possession of
respondents; that complainant received a call from
chachi/mother-in-law and she informed her that Vimal-
husband of complainant was in very serious condition due to
over drinking of alcohol and he was admitted in hospital;
that complainant along with her parents and brother went to
hospital, but nobody allowed her to meet him; that on
08.11.2020, complainant came to know from some relative
that her husband has expired, however, respondents had not
informed her about the same; that complainant along with
her parents and brother had gone to cremation ground at
Nigam Bodh Ghat; that after some time, father, brother and
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali
KUMARSharma Page No.2/17
Date: 2025.06.09
16:33:03 +0530
uncle of complainant went to her matrimonial home and they
requested the respondents to return her stridhan/gold
jewellery, but they flatly refused to return the same; that
respondent no.3 and her husband are permanently residing at
her matrimonial home since May 2019 till date; that
respondent no.3 is the main person, who wants to grab the
whole property of her parents; that all bank balances, Fixed
Deposits, life insurance policies and other investments of
complainant’s husband are lying in the custody of
respondents and being legally wedded wife/widow of her
late husband, complainant has every right to take benefits of
the same; that after death of complainant’s husband,
respondents are liable to give maintenance as well as to
provide her residence rights being widow daughter-in-law of
respondent no.1 and 2. Therefore, having no other option,
the Complainant filed a Petition under section
12/18/19/20/22 DV Act, wherein she has alleged certain
incidents of commission of domestic violence upon her
during the subsistence of domestic relationship with
appellant and claimed various reliefs under the provisions of
the Act.
3. Along with the petition u/s 12 D.V. Act, complainant
had also moved an application seeking interim maintenance
against the Appellant and by order dated 09.08.2023, the Ld.
Trial Court allowed the application and directed the
Appellant/R1 to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per
month to complainant into the bank account of complainant
from the date of filing of petition i.e. 03.12.2021 till disposal
of the complaint or till such time, complainant is entitled to
receive the same, whichever is earlier.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:33:12 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.3/17
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred
the present appeal for setting aside of the impugned order
mainly on the following grounds:
a) that impugned order has been passed by Ld. MM without
considering the material on record and without applying
judicial mind;
b) that Ld. Trial court failed to consider the fact that
complainant herself left company of her late husband in June
2019 much prior to death of her husband and she took all
gold and silver ornaments, cash, clothes and her documents
with her at the time of leaving matrimonial house;
c) that respondent has no locus to claim maintenance from
appellant i.e. father-in-law of complainant;
d) that Ld. Trial court failed to consider the fact that
respondent is well qualified lady 40 years of age and she is
running boutique business and she has no liability to
maintain anyone except herself;
e) Ld. Trial court failed to consider the fact that appellant
and his wife are senior citizen aged 75 years and 69 years
and they are suffering from old age ailments and also they
have no source of income;
f) Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the fact that
complainant herself chose to live separately from her
husband much prior to his death and she has filed the said
complaint with ulterior motives only to harass the appellant
and his wife after the death of her husband.
5. Ld. Counsel for appellant has argued on the lines of
grounds taken in the instant appeal and submitted that the
respondent herself is running a boutique and earning income
from it. Also, it has been argued that appellant being father-
in-law of respondent is otherwise not liable to pay any
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:33:22
+0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.4/17
maintenance to her. Therefore, order of the Ld. Trial Court to
pay interim maintenance is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for Respondent has
argued that appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in
the impugned order and the Ld. Trial Court had passed the
impugned order after going through the complaint as well as
income affidavits of both the parties. It is further argued that
this appeal is just an abuse of legal process and has been
filed only to defeat/delay a well-reasoned maintenance order
passed by the trial court and thus the same is liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of
both sides and perused the material available on record.
8. At the outset, it is essential to understand the scheme
of DV Act. A petition u/s 12 Act can be filed only by an
‘aggrieved person’ claiming one or more reliefs provided
under the Act. An aggrieved person is defined in Section
2(a) of the Act to mean any woman, who is or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to
have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the
respondent. Further, complainant shall be entitled to any
interim relief as per provisions of D.V. Act, only if domestic
relationship between the parties is established and there is
commission of domestic violence upon her during the course
of aforesaid relationship.
9. It is worth mentioning that appellant has admittedly
stated that marriage of his son was solemnized with
respondent/complainant on 20.04.2007 at Delhi, thus,
domestic relationship between the parties is well established.
Further, there are specific allegations of physical, emotional
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:33:34 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.5/17
and mental torture upon the respondent/complainant in the
present matter.
10. Further, it is a settled law that for grant of interim
relief to the aggrieved party, court can take the averments
made by the parties along with their respective affidavits of
assets and liabilities into consideration. Pertinently, the
respondent/ complainant by way of an application u/s 23
D.V. Act, had sought an interim relief for an amount of
Rs.30,000/- p.m. along with litigation expenses for herself,
while the Ld. Trial Court, by virtue of the impugned order,
had directed the appellant/father-in-law to pay an interim
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the complainant-
daughter in law to be paid in the bank account of
complainant from the date of filing of petition.
11. Pertinently, under DV Act, the monetary relief to be
granted, has to be adequate, fair and reasonable and
consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved
person is accustomed to. Although, under the D.V. Act,
father-in-law, who has been directed to pay interim
maintenance in the case in hand, would be well covered
within the ambit of the definition of word ‘respondent’, as
provided under Section 2(q) of the Act and a daughter in law
may be entitled to reliefs under the Act against him,
however, as per scheme of things the primary responsibility
of maintaining the complainant-wife is upon the husband,
but in the present case, the father-in-law has been burdened
with the same. Even though, father- in- law may be directed
to pay interim maintenance to daughter-in-law, but that has
to be seen on case- to- case basis and only if the facts and
circumstances demand. However, it is worth mentioning that
in the case in hand, admittedly Appellant’s son and
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:33:45 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.6/17
respondent got married on 20.04.2007 and date of their
separation, as per contention of respondent when she is
stated to be thrown out of matrimonial home, is 10.06.2019.
The said contention has been vehemently opposed by the
appellant by stating that on the contrary, respondent had left
her matrimonial house on her own accord/sweet will and
thereafter despite requests made by the appellant’s side, she
did not return, even when she was told that her husband was
not keeping well. Further, it is stated on behalf of appellant
that respondent severed her ties with the family of her
husband and had nothing to do with the appellant or any
other family members of the appellant, so much so that she
did not visit her husband in the hospital even once, when he
was admitted there. Importantly, the aforesaid contentions on
behalf of appellant have only been plainly denied on behalf
of respondent in the reply to the pending appeal as well as in
the rejoinder filed by the respondent in response to written
statement filed by appellant, before the Ld. Trial court,
without answering the same as to the point of substance.
Even in the petition under Section 12 DV Act, it has been
averred on behalf of respondent that she received a call from
chachi, who is stated to have told her about the admission of
husband of respondent in a hospital due to over drinking of
alcohol, upon which respondent along with her parents and
brother went to the hospital, but nobody allowed them to
meet her husband. However, the said averment seems to be
bereft of specific details either of the hospital or about the
date on which she visited her husband. Also, nothing has
been mentioned therein as to what action/effort was
taken/made by the respondent when she was allegedly not
allowed to meet her ailing husband at hospital. Even if the
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:33:53
+0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.7/17
said averment made before the Ld.Trial Court is taken as
gospel truth, then too, it seems that no further effort was
made by her to meet her husband, otherwise the same would
have been mentioned in the petition. Moreover, in case she
was really not allowed to meet her husband, then a
complaint in this regard could have been moved to the police
seeking their intervention. Further, during the course of
arguments in the pending appeal, it was never refuted on her
behalf even once that she did not visit her late husband in the
hospital. Importantly, one contention in the appeal that
“respondent herself left the company of her late husband in
June 2019 much prior to death of her husband and she took
all her ornaments of gold and silver, cash, clothes and
documents at the time of leaving the matrimonial home
without any reason” has only been plainly/evasively denied,
without answering the same as to the point of substance. It is
worthwhile to mention that it is not in dispute that
respondent had already left the matrimonial house while her
husband was alive, however, regarding the contention on her
behalf that she was ousted from her matrimonial house and
was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and other family
members during the time she was residing in the
matrimonial house, it may well be stated that not even a
single complaint was filed by the respondent since her
marriage took place on 20.04.2007 till the date of separation
on 10.06.19 and not even soon thereafter. It is worthwhile to
mention that under normal circumstances, if a daughter-in-
law is ousted from her matrimonial house against her wishes,
then the first thing which is expected to be done by her
would be to instantly file a complaint or approach the
women’s commission or other authorities, but it is beyond
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:02
+0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.8/17
comprehension as to why no such step was taken by her
immediately. Pertinently, it intrigues this court no end that if
at all, the respondent was aggrieved by the fact that she was
forcibly ousted from the matrimonial house, then why did
she take a long time to file her first complaint i.e. under DV
Act, which as per record, was belatedly filed only around 2.5
years after the date of separation and after more than one
year of the death of her husband. In addition to this, the FIR
u/s 498A/406 IPC was got registered only after around three
years of separation and only after around 1.5 years of death
of her husband. Importantly, no explanation whatsoever
with respect to the aforesaid delay in filing the
complaint/FIR has been given on behalf of respondent, more
so, as it has been contended in the petition filed before the
trial court that she was thrown out of her matrimonial house
by her husband and other family members in presence of her
father. Further, the delay on behalf of respondent in taking
any action is all the more baffling, as it was contended
before the trial court on behalf of respondent that she and her
father were given stern directions by the appellant and his
family by saying jab tumhare paas 5 lakh rupye or car ka
intzaam ho jaye to bata dena hum le aayenge. Moreover, it is
not even her case in the petition filed under DV Act before
the Ld. Trial court that when she was allegedly ousted from
her matrimonial house, then she went back to her parental
house and told her parents and brother about the fact that she
was subjected to domestic violence/cruelty by the appellant
and his family members including her husband and they
advised her not to take any action to save her matrimonial
life. Further, the contention that the appellant and his family
members had taken away her stridhan, which upon several
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:10 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.9/17
demands, was not returned, also seems to lack specific
details as to when the said stridhan, if at all in possession of
the other side, was demanded back by the respondent from
the appellant and his family. Moreover, whether at all the
said istridhan/gold & silver jewellery was ever handed over
to the Appellant and his family or not, is a matter of trial and
is yet to be proved, especially when no bills/invoices
pertaining to the same have been placed on record before the
trial court.
12. Further, interim relief was sought by the respondent
before the trial court by contending that after she was ousted
from the matrimonial home, her parents have been taking
care of her needs and as per affidavit filed on record, her
monthly expenses are Rs.30,000/-. However, the said
contention also does not seem to be supported by any
documentary proof, more so, as she has not filed any specific
details as to who exactly has been incurring the expenses as
stated above on the respondent and if at all, the same are
being incurred, then from what source, the said amount is
being spent for the needs of respondent. Regarding the
contention on behalf of respondent before the trial court that
she is residing on rent, it is worth mentioning that only a rent
agreement for tenancy beginning w.e.f. 25.10.2022 has been
filed, but inexplicably the same seems to have been executed
only on 21.12.2022 pertaining to property bearing no. 255,
New Layalpur, Chander Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi-110051.
Further, in the said agreement, it has been mentioned that
respondent has been a tenant for the last two years in the said
property, but no document in support of said tenancy with
respect to previous 2 years has been filed on record.
Importantly, a copy of front page of passbook of Kangra
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:18
+0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.10/17
Cooperative Bank Ltd. belonging to the respondent has been
placed on record on her behalf, wherein the address of
respondent at the time of opening the account in the said
bank on 25.10.2022 is shown as 283/5, Dixit Gali, New
Layalpur, Chander Nagar, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi-51,
which is inexplicably contradictory to the address given in
the rent agreement placed on record by the respondent
pertaining to the same date i.e. 25.10.2022. It is beyond the
comprehension of this court as to how the respondent was
residing at two different addresses on the same date and this
discrepancy creates a doubt on the version put forth by the
respondent, which may well be appreciated by the Ld. Trial
Court at an appropriate stage. In addition to this, it is beyond
explanation as to why respondent in her urgent application
filed before the trial court has stated that she has to take
loans for rental accommodation, whereas a contrary stand
has been taken by her in the affidavit of assets and liability
filed before the trial court, wherein she has stated that her
parents are taking care of her needs and she is totally
dependent on them. Also, in sub column ‘6’ of the column
no. ‘G’ i.e. assets owned by the deponent in the aforesaid
affidavit, against the details of loans taken by the deponent,
respondent has categorically mentioned ‘NA’, which clearly
negates her version that she has to take loans for rental
accommodation and thus raises doubt about the veracity of
her claim.
13. Further, interim relief was also sought by the
respondent before the Ld. Trial court by contending that
during the time she was residing at her matrimonial home,
she was subjected to harassment, cruelty as well as domestic
violence. Pertinently, a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:26
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.11/17
+0530
filed before the trial court wherein contradictory versions as
to demand of money are apparent on the face of it, as at one
place under the heading ‘Dowry related harassment’, it has
been mentioned that a demand of Rs.5 lakh and a car was
made, whereas in the said report, under the heading ‘any
other information…..’, it has been categorically mentioned
that her husband and his family members had demanded an
amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and a car on 10.06.2019 i.e. the date
of separation. The said discrepancy as to the amount
allegedly demanded by the appellant and his family does not
inspire confidence and raises some sort of doubt as to the
version of the respondent before the trial court. Further, it
has been contended by the respondent in the petition filed
before the Ld. Trial court that she was subjected to cruelty/
domestic violence, as she was forcibly made to consume
some pudiya/pills by the wife and daughter of appellant in
the year 2008, however, it may well be said that these
allegations also do not inspire any confidence, as apart from
bald submissions in this regard, nothing has been placed on
record by the respondent to even remotely suggest that she
was forcibly administered some objectionable substance by
the wife and daughter of appellant, more so, as no action
whatsoever was taken by the respondent by filing a
complaint/FIR in this regard, especially when the act alleged
to have been done was supposed to be a serious one, which
may have led to serious consequences as far as health/well-
being of respondent is concerned. It is noteworthy that even
if the aforesaid allegations are presumed to be correct for a
moment, then too, it may well be said that the same are not
against the appellant and are instead levelled against his wife
as well as his daughter, against whom no directions
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:34 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.12/17
whatsoever have been passed in the impugned order. In
addition to this, it is worth mentioning that the Ld. Trial
court has ignored the fact that the allegations of domestic
violence mentioned in the DIR as well as in the petition filed
before the said court are primarily against the wife and
daughter of appellant, whereas the same against the
appellant are only general in nature. Moreover, the said
allegations upon the appellant do not seem to be
substantiated by any documentary proof on record and even
otherwise, the same are a matter of trial and are yet to be
proved. Further, the said allegations of cruelty/ domestic
violence by the appellant seems to be negated to a great
extent in the light of medical documents pertaining to
respondent, placed on record by the appellant. Perusal of
said documents clearly reveals that respondent was
undergoing treatment for complications as far as
conception/pregnancy is concerned. Further, perusal of the
said documents also seem to reveal that IVF treatment of
respondent was going on from a private clinic and payment
of substantial amount of money for the said purpose prima
facie seems to have been made by the appellant, as per
documentary proof on record.
14. Further, apart from a house, which is alleged to be the
matrimonial house/shared household of the respondent,
appellant does not seem to be having any other property or
source of income, as per the affidavit filed, however, the
interim maintenance amount seems to have been fixed by the
Ld. Trial court without considering the aforesaid financial
capacity of the appellant/father-in-law as well as his age i.e.
75 years (at the time of passing of impugned order). Further,
the fact that he has been battling several old age ailments
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:43
+0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.13/17
and also has an old aged wife to take care of, seems to have
been ignored by the trial court while passing the impugned
order.
15. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that
respondent/complainant has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Ajay Kumar Vs. Lata @
Sharuti and Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 617 of 2019 (SLP CRL.
No. 652 of 2019). Pertinently, this court while owing
allegiance and being duty bound to follow the said law laid
down by the Hon’ble Court, would still like to point out that
the said authority is of no assistance to the respondent, as the
same is very much distinguishable on facts. In the said case,
maintenance was directed by the Hon’ble Court to be given
by brother-in-law to the respondent(wife of deceased
brother), as he and his deceased brother were jointly running
a kiryana store and parties were residing in a house, which
belonged to Hindu Joint Family and was an ancestral
property, which is not the case in hand by any stretch of
imagination nor any such pleadings have been taken by the
respondent before the trial court or here in this appeal, at the
time of filing reply to the same. It is worth mentioning that
only in the affidavit of assets and liabilities, respondent has
stated that matrimonial house is an ancestral property,
however, no document in this regard has been placed on
record by the respondent, while on the other hand, a copy of
will pertaining to the property in question bequeathed in
favour of appellant has been furnished on record by the
appellant, which prima facie suggests that the said property
is a self-acquired property. Moreover, it is for the respondent
to prove the contrary and whether the property is ancestral or
not is a matter of trial. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:34:50 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.14/17
16. Otherwise, it is a settled law that a daughter-in-law
may claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section
19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act subject to the
condition that she is unable to maintain herself with her own
earnings or where she has no property of her own and is
unable to maintain herself from estate of her husband or her
father or her mother or her son, daughter. However, sub
section 2 of Section 19 of the said Act, has created a caveat
against right of daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from
her father-in-law that she cannot claim the same except out
of coparcernary property in possession of her father-in-law,
in which her deceased husband has a share and she has not
already obtained the same. It is worthwhile to mention that
an application in the light of aforesaid provision for seeking
interim maintenance by the respondent against the appellant
was filed before the Judge, Family Court (Shahdara) and the
same was dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2024 with the
finding that interim maintenance application is not
maintainable, as appellant and his wife are old aged and
have no source of earning and that the property, which is
stated herein to be the matrimonial home/shared household
of respondent, is not a coparcenary/ancestral property, but is
a self-acquired property. Moreover, it is worth mentioning
that in the absence of anything placed on record with respect
to stay, if any, on the aforesaid order by a higher court, the
said order is binding upon the respondent.
17. Last but not the least, it would be profitable to place
reliance upon the judgment of Jagdev Singh Vs. Paramjeet
Kaur CRR No. 2937 of 2010 (O & M), wherein the Hon’ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court has placed reliance upon
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatsalaben Ashokbhai Patel and
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:34:58 +0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.15/17
Ors. 2008 (3) SCC 649, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises
only when the husband has died and such an obligation can
be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-
sharer and not otherwise. Thus, the Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) has held that a
daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from father-in-law in
case she is able to prove by adducing evidence/documents
that the property in question is a Joint Hindu Family
property or ancestral property, in which her deceased
husband has a right. So, in the light of aforesaid authority, it
may well be said that respondent may prove by way of
leading evidence that the property in question is an ancestral
property and her husband had a share in the same, therefore,
she has a right to be maintained out of it.
18. Thus, in the light of above factual scenario, it may
well be said that fixing interim maintenance in favour of
respondent-daughter in law payable by the appellant-father-
in-law was not warranted at that stage. However, this court
may hasten to add that in case allegations against the
appellant/father-in-law are proved upon leading evidence by
the respondent, then it would be open to the Ld. Trial court
to appropriately fix an amount, if any, against the appellant
at the time of disposal of DV petition.
19. Therefore, considering the above discussion, this
court is of the opinion that Ld. Trial Court has erred by
passing the impugned order and suffice it to state that the
same is not sustainable, especially considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed and as
a result, impugned order is set aside. However, it may well
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:35:05
+0530
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.16/17
be stated that nothing expressed herein above shall
tantamount to any expression of this court on merits of the
case pending before the trial court.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
TCR be sent back to Ld. Trial Court along with copy
of this Order for necessary information and compliance, if
any. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:35:15 +0530
Announced in the open (Vineet Kumar)
court on 09.06.2025 Presently: Addl. Sessions
Judge-02, West District
Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Earlier: Addl. Sessions Judge-02,
E-Court, Shahdara District
KKD Courts, Delhi.
(Transferred vide order no. 5/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025
dated 30.05.2025)
CA No. 170/2023 Hari Krishna Vs. Deepali Sharma Page No.17/17