Delhi District Court
Aakash Marya vs Aditi Aakash Marya on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02; DISTRICT WEST, TIS
HAZARI, DELHI.
Crl. (Appeal) No. 237/19
Aditi Aakash Marya
W/o Sh. Aakash Marya
Currently residing at
A-109, Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
............... Appellant
Versus
1. Aakash Marya
S/o Sh. Amber Kumar Marya
Temporary resident of
Flat No. 180, Engineer's Estate,
21, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi 110092.
2. Meena Marya
W/o Sh. Amber Kumar Marya
3. Amber Kumar Marya
(Since deceased)
All permanent residents of
Flat No. 30, DDA Flats,
Swasthya Vihar, Delhi.
............... Respondents
AND
Crl. (Appeal) No. 238/19
Aakash Marya
S/o Sh. Amber Kumar Marya
R/o Flat No. G-3, 2nd Floor,
Engineer's Estate, Plot No. 21,
I.P. Extension, Delhi 110092.
............... Appellant
Versus
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:41:48 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.1/28
Aditi Aakash Marya
W/o Sh. Aakash Marya
R/o A-109, Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
............... Respondent
ORDER
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of instant
two appeals, wherein Appeal bearing CA No. 237/19, titled
as Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. and
Appeal bearing CA no. 238/19 titled as Aakash Marya Vs.
Aditi Aakash Marya are cross appeals, filed under provisions
of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) by the parties
assailing the impugned order dated 19.10.2019, passed by
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Shahdara
District, KKD Courts, whereby husband was directed to pay
an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the appellant-
wife from the month of October, 2019 onwards and
Rs.20,000/- p.m. to both the twin minor daughters
(Rs.10,000/- each) from the month of filing of Domestic
Violence Complaint i.e. April 2018.
2. By virtue of the Criminal Appeal bearing no. 237/19
under Section 29 DV Act, Appellant-wife/Complainant seeks
to set aside the impugned order and at the same time seeks
interim maintenance for an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs per
month for herself as well as for her twin minor daughters,
whereas, vide criminal appeal bearing no. 238/19, Appellant-
husband seeks to set aside/modify the impugned order dated
19.10.2019 to the extent of grant of maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- by the Ld. Trial court to respondent/wife from
the month of October 2019 till further order.
Digitally signed by
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:42:01 +0530
Page No.2/28
3. Along with the said appeals, separate applications
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation
of delay in filing the respective appeals have also been filed
by the appellants.
4. Before proceeding to adjudicate the appeals, first of
all it is necessary to decide the applications seeking
condonation of delay in filing both the appeals.
5. By way of the applications seeking condonation of
delay in filing the appeal no.237/2019 and 238/2019, it has
been stated that there is a delay of 7 days and 15 days in
filing the same.
6. Heard. Perused.
7. Pertinently, the impugned order was passed on
19.10.2019 and as per the prescribed period, appeals by the
parties ought to have been filed by 19.11.2019, however, the
same have been filed on 03.12.2019 and 04.12.2019 with the
delay, which is stated to be 7 and 15 days respectively.
Perusal of the applications reveals that reasons attributed for
delay in filing the said appeals are for obtaining certified
copy of the impugned order, strike of lawyers and personal
exigency. Although, the reasons mentioned for delay do not
inspire much confidence, but in the opinion of this Court,
interest of justice is better served when matters are
adjudicated on merits, rather than on the point of limitation.
Moreover, delay of 15 and 7 days is not too much and also
there is nothing on record to suggest that filing of appeal
belatedly was an intentional act or has caused any harm to
the opposite party. Therefore, without dwelling too much
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:42:09 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.3/28
into this aspect, the applications seeking condonation of
delay are allowed and the said delay is accordingly
condoned.
BRIEF FACTS:
8. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the
present appeals are that on 28.04.2018, the petitioner Aditi
had filed a complaint u/s 12 of D.V. Act along with an
application u/s 23 of the Act, thereby alleging that she was
subjected to repeated acts of cruelty and domestic violence
by the appellant-husband and others and various reliefs
under Section 18/19/20/22 of the Act were sought by way of
said complaint; vide order dated 19.10.2019, the Ld. Trial
Court had directed the respondent/husband Akash to pay
Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the petitioner/wife from October 2019
till further orders and Rs.20,000/- to both the children
(Rs.10,000/- each) towards interim maintenance from the
month of filing of the petition till further orders; that the
above said amount is directed to be inclusive of rent towards
alternative accommodation as also all other ancillary and
miscellaneous expenses including medical expenses. Thus,
aggrieved by the impugned order, appeal bearing no. 237/19
has been preferred by the appellant/wife assailing the said
order, whereas appeal bearing no. 238/19 has been preferred
by appellant/husband assailing the same.
9. Before proceeding further to adjudicate the present
appeals, it is important to reproduce the relevant part of the
impugned order, which is as under:
“Thus, considering the difference in the income and
status of parties and the law that wife is entitled for
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARCA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:42:18 +0530Page No.4/28
equal status, respondent/husband is directed to pay
Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife from this
month till further orders and Rs.20,000/- to both the
children (each 10 thousand) towards interim
maintenance from the month of filing of this case till
further orders. Needless to mention that this includes
rent towards alternative accommodation as also all
other ancillary and miscellaneous expenses including
medical expenses. The arrears of maintenance be
cleared within three months from the date of the
order.”
10. The impugned order has been challenged by
Appellant-wife primarily on the following grounds in Crl.
Appeal No. 237/19:
a. That Ld. Trial Court has, while observing that the wife
and children are entitled to maintenance on the principle of
equal status that they would have enjoyed if continued to
live with the husband in the matrimonial home, erred in
awarding maintenance of merely Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the
appellant wife and Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the twin daughters @
Rs.10,000/- p.m. per child in an attempt to equalize the
difference in the stated/disclosed income of the parties.
b. That, even otherwise, the attempt of the Ld. Trial
Court in equalizing the difference between the
stated/disclosed net income of the respondent/husband
(Rs.89,500/- p.m.) and of the appellant (Rs.44,000/-p.m.) is
both arithmetically and legally flawed, given the respective
liabilities of the parties. The appellant has the liability to
maintain herself and the twin minor daughters whereas it is
the admitted case of the respondent husband that he has no
dependents.
c. That, Ld. Trial Court has although given differential
treatment to the maintenance award of the Appellant and that
Digitally signed by
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET VINEET KUMARCA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:42:43 +0530Page No.5/28
of the twin daughters, but has remarkably failed to state the
reason behind the said differential treatment.
d. That, Ld. Trial Court has erred in awarding meager
amount of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as maintenance to twin minor
daughters, inclusive of their school and medical expenses,
when the expenditure on the school fees alone of the twin
minor daughters is Rs.20,000/- pm and the expenditure
incurred on the education, medicines, food of the minor
daughters as per the bills and receipts placed before Ld. Trial
Court is more than Rs.70,000/- p.m.e. That, Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe that the
true income of respondent’s husband is much more than
Rs.89,500/- as disclosed by him as the average monthly in-
hand income received by him in his disclosed bank account
is Rs.1,13,889/- (2016), Rs.92,940/- (2017) and Rs.98,792/-
(2018). In addition to the above, he is also receiving
monthly payments from WBO, Noida & RDVU, Noida as
disclosed from his own bank statements. Also, as per his
Form 26AS, the yearly bonuses received by him are to the
tune of Rs.76,303/-(31.10.2016), Rs.35,100/- (30.11.2017)
and Rs.44,550/- (30.11.2018).
f. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact
that respondent has been regularly transferring money into
the accounts of his parents on a monthly basis to the tune of
Rs.6,43,885/- in 2016 alone despite declaring them to be
financially independent.
g. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to draw an adverse
inference against the respondent as he has neither disclosed
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:42:51 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.6/28
nor submitted the accounts statements of one more bank
account of his with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) (Account
No.1721820), as revealed in his own ITR (AY 2016-17).
h. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to take notice of the
fact that the respondent husband owns/has beneficial
interests in the following assets:
(1) Flat No. E-402, Saraswati Apartments, Plot No. 97, IP
Extn., Delhi.
(2) Flat No. 30, Swasthya Vihar Apartments, IP Extn., Delhi.
(3) Family business under the name of ‘Common Health
Systems Pvt. Ltd.’ involved in the healthcare industry.
(4) Gold/Diamond sets, biscuits and other jewellery worth
Rs.1.5 crores (approx), Joint Bank Lockers of the
respondents at Corporation Bank and Syndicate Bank
Branch in Preet Vihar.
i. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact
that appellant and her minor children are forced to take
temporary shelter in the house of the appellant’s mother at
Ghaziabad, UP upon being evicted from the matrimonial
house on 28.11.2018 by the respondents, whereas the twin
daughters are studying at Amity Intl. School, Noida.
Moreover, the application of appellant dated 14.03.2019 u/s
19(1)(f) of DV Act, 2005 seeking an alternate
accommodation for herself and the minor daughters in a
suitable residential area in/around the school of the minor
daughters is pending before the Ld. MM. Despite this fact,
meager amount of Rs.30,000/- p.m. inclusive of the rent
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:42:58
+0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.7/28
towards alternative accommodation has been granted to the
appellant and the twin minor daughters.
11. The impugned order has been challenged by
appellant-husband primarily on the following grounds in Crl.
Appeal No. 238/19:
a. That Ld. Trial Court has wrongly observed that there is a
huge difference in the income and status of the appellant and
respondent and held the respondent entitled to maintenance
according to the status of the appellant.
b. That Ld. Trial Court has wrongly presumed the
appellant to be possessing higher status than the respondent
and has granted maintenance to the respondent laying much
stress upon the status of the appellant.
c. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that
appellant was having a middle-class status as disclosed by
him in his affidavit of income, assets and expenditure
whereas the respondent was having an upper middle-class
status as disclosed by her in her affidavit of income, assets
and expenditure.
d. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration that the appellant and respondent while
staying together also had always been leading a middle-class
lifestyle, sharing the expenses together and bringing up the
children with joint efforts.
e. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration that the appellant is living in one BHK flat on
rent at par with his middle- class status whereas on the other
hand, the respondent is staying at a bungalow of her mother
Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET
Digitally signed by
CA No. 237/19 VINEET KUMARCA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:43:08 +0530Page No.8/28
with her own wish and without any compulsion from the
appellant and the said bungalow is among one of the seven
properties owned by the respondent/her family.
f. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration that appellant is only working as Sr. Fashion
Designer at an Export House, CTA Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and
his monthly salary after TDS is Rs.79,500/-, whereas
respondent is working as Head of Department (HOD) at
Footwear Design Development Institute (FDDI), Ministry of
Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India, Noida and her net
monthly income is Rs.45,000/- in hand and besides that, she
has additional rental income of Rs.22,000/- p.m. Therefore,
it is clear that income of appellant and respondent is at par
with each other.
g. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that
respondent is the owner of Flat No. 37, Savarkar
Apartments, IP Extension, Delhi and she is earning rental
income from the same. Also, in her ITR for the assessment
year 2017-18, respondent has disclosed income from one
house property to be Rs. 1,50,775/- p.m.h. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that under
Sr. No. 77 of her income, assets and expenditure affidavit,
respondent has admitted that her average monthly
withdrawal from bank is Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- which
clearly indicates that apart from net salary income of approx.
Rs.45,000/-, she has additional bank credits and her income.
i. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration that the bank account statement of respondent
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:43:24 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.9/28
on page no. 94,95,97 & 99 of her income, assets and
expenditure affidavit disclosed that the respondent also gets
Medical Reimbursement/Diwali Ex Gratia and LTC and
respondent had intentionally not filed her CTC so as to
conceal all the inclusions in her salary and benefits.
j. That Ld. Trial Court overlooked the income affidavit
of respondent in which she has claimed to have paid Rs. 2
lacs towards the litigation charges of the complaint under
PWDVA 2005 which shows that respondent has huge source
of income with herself and she can certainly maintain herself
within her income and is not entitled for maintenance from
the appellant.
k. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that
respondent under Sr. No. 30 has mentioned that appellant
and family owns three cars but she has failed to mention that
one of those cars (Ford Figo) owned by Appellant is being
used by her for commuting with kids and apart from this, her
mother and both sisters own three cars, including a luxury
Honda Car.
l. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration that the respondent at Sr. No. 57 of her income
affidavit has shown religious contributions and donations of
Rs.20,000/- p.a. whereas her actual donations as per her
income tax return for AY 2018-19 on page no. 136 of her
income affidavit is Rs.71,000/- p.a. Therefore, the claim of
respondent seeking maintenance is not digestible.
m. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that
respondent on page no. 22 of her income affidavit mentioned
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:43:38 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.10/28
that she approximately incurs an expenditure of Rs.2 to 3
lacs on functions including birthday of the children in Five
Star Hotel after leaving the appellant.
n. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that
respondent has AVIVA Life Insurance (since Jan. 2010) for
which she is contributing Rs.50,000/- p.a. since Jan. 2010,
National Savings Certificates for Rs.60,000/- in the name of
Ms. Aditi Sharma and IDFC Bond worth Rs.20,000/- from
which she earns interest Rs.1740/- every year. The
respondent with malafide intentions has concealed the
declaration of her savings, in her income affidavit, regarding
which, appellant has also initiated separate complaint case
no. 22/19 under Section 340 Cr.PC against the respondent
for perjury for false/fabricated expenditure details and
concealment of her full annual income and savings.
o. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that
all gold, silver and diamond jewellery of the respondent
given by her family and family of appellant is also in the
custody of the respondent.
12. It is pertinent to mention that one way or the other,
both the parties are aggrieved by the impugned order and
have filed the respective appeals. By way of criminal appeal
no. 237/19, appellant-wife is seeking enhancement of the
interim maintenance to Rs.1.5 lacs p.m. for herself and her
twin minor daughters by stating that expenditure on the
school fees of the twin minor daughters alone is Rs.20,000/-
p.m.; that in order to evade legal liability to maintain the
appellant and twin minor daughters, respondent has shown
himself to be living in a rented accommodation which
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 16:43:56
+0530
Page No.11/28
belongs to his maternal uncle only; that respondent has been
regularly transferring money into the account of his parents
on monthly basis despite declaring them to be financially
independent.
13. Whereas, by way of criminal appeal no. 238/19,
appellant/ husband has prayed for setting aside of the
impugned order to the extent whereby interim maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- p.m. has been granted to the respondent-wife
from the month of October 2019 till further orders.
14. Reply to both the appeals were filed by respondents in
respective appeals wherein both the respondents have denied
the averments made by the other side and reiterated their
respective claims.
15. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of
both sides on the pending appeals and meticulously perused
the material available on record.
16. Ld. Counsel for the appellant-husband has, first of all,
submitted that husband does not wish to challenge the
impugned order to the extent of grant of interim maintenance
amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each) to the minor twin
daughters, however, he is only assailing the said order as far
as remaining part is concerned i.e. grant of interim
maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent-wife.
He has argued on the same line as grounds taken in the
instant appeal. It was forcefully argued that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Ld. Trial Court
has wrongly assessed the income of appellant as Rs.89,000/-
per month. It was further argued that the Ld. Trial Court
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:44:05 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.12/28
failed to consider the fact that complainant/wife had not
approached the court with clean hands and has rather
concealed and suppressed material facts. It was further
argued that the wife is well educated and is earning much
more than the husband, but the Ld. Trial court has wrongly
assessed the earning/income of respondent-wife. It is urged
that complainant/wife herself has committed various acts of
cruelty upon the appellant and as such, husband is not liable
to pay maintenance to her. He also argued that the wife was
never subjected to domestic violence. Thus, on the strength
of these arguments, husband seeks setting aside of impugned
order to the extent as stated above.
17. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the appellant-wife
argued that the Ld. Trial Court, after considering all the facts
and circumstances, has awarded the maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month each to her as well as to her minor
daughters, which is inadequate. It has been further submitted
that the husband/ respondent has given false declaration that
he is having annual income of Rs. 80,000/- per annum. It has
also been argued that the respondent-husband has various
sources of income and is earning more than Rs.2 lakh per
month and that the husband is regularly transferring money
to his parents in order to avoid his liability.
18. At the outset, as per settled law,
appellant/complainant/wife shall be entitled to any interim
relief as per provisions of D.V. Act, only if domestic
relationship between the parties is ascertained and there is
commission of domestic violence upon her during the course
of aforesaid relationship. Pertinently, the husband has
Digitally signed
Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET
by VINEET
CA No. 237/19 KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya 16:44:12 +0530
Page No.13/28
himself admitted the factum of marriage with
complainant/wife as well as birth of his two daughters out of
the said wedlock. Thus, domestic relationship is well
established. The complainant / wife has alleged that she was
subjected to domestic violence by the husband and his
family members. However, the same has been denied by the
appellant/husband. Moreover, it is settled law that serious
disputed questions of fact (requiring evidence) cannot be
gone into at the time of deciding an application for grant of
interim maintenance and the same can only be adjudicated
during the course of trial after parties lead their respective
evidence. However, there are specific allegations of physical,
emotional and mental torture upon the complainant/wife and
when the same are seen together with DIR on record, then
prima facie commission of domestic violence seems to be
made out. Therefore, the observation of Ld. Trial court in
this regard cannot be faulted with.
19. Now adverting to the legality of award of interim
maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant-wife and Rs.
20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each) to the minor twin daughters.
Pertinently, for the purpose of grant of interim relief to the
aggrieved party, court can take the averments of the parties
along with their respective affidavits of assets, income and
expenditure into consideration to form a prima facie opinion
in this regard. It is further pertinent to mention that while
affixing the amount of interim maintenance, court need not
critically examine the respective claims of the parties
regarding their income and assets because for deciding the
same, evidence would be required. But, at the same time, an
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
16:44:19 +0530
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.14/28
aggrieved person cannot be rendered to live a life of destitute
till completion of trial. It is also pertinent to note that as per
the dictionary meaning of the word ‘maintenance’ it includes
all such means of living as would enable one to live in the
degree of comfort, suitable and becoming to his situation of
life. It is said to include anything requisite to housing,
feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation,
travelling expenses or other cognate purposes.
20. Further, it is important to mention that claim of
maintenance by wife u/s 125 Cr. PC. is qualified by
expression “unable to maintain herself”, but there are no
such words mentioned under D.V. Act, in which, the
Magistrate has the powers to direct respondent to pay
monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the
aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence and such
relief may inter alia include the maintenance for the
aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an
order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.PC or any other law for the time being in
force. Under Section 20(2) DV Act, the monetary relief
granted has to be adequate, fair and reasonable and
consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved
person is accustomed.
21. In the present case, it is the contention on behalf of
appellant-wife that as per the financial affidavit of
respondent/husband, his gross income is Rs.12,08,550/- p.a.
as on 19.04.2019 and correspondingly the net in-hand
income (post tax deductions) is Rs.11,09,392/- p.a. which
Digitally signed
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET by VINEET
KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:44:27 +0530
Page No.15/28
translates to a monthly income of Rs.92,449/-; that despite
declaring his parents to be financially independent,
respondent/husband has been regularly transferring money
into their accounts on a monthly basis in order to defeat the
maintenance rights of the appellant/complainant/wife and
twin daughters and in 2016 alone, he transferred
Rs.6,43,885/- into his parent’s accounts; that as per the ITR
of respondent/husband, he has one more bank account with
Royal Bank of Scotland, however, in his financial affidavit
dated 24.11.2018, he did not submit its bank statements
along with his list of financial documents; that as per Form
26AS, the respondent/husband has also received yearly
bonuses to the tune of Rs.76,303/- in 2016, Rs.35,100/- in
2017 and Rs. 44,550/- in 2018 from his employer i.e. CTA
Apparels. Whereas, the employment of
appellant/complainant/wife is one-year contractual
employment subjected to extension and variable pay is being
received by her from the said employment as the said
amount is subjected to number of days actually worked by
her. It has also been contended that
appellant/complainant/wife is incurring a total monthly
expenditure to the tune of Rs.1.4 lacs p.m. on the education,
maintenance and upkeep of the twin minor daughters and the
maintenance awarded vide impugned order is not even
sufficient to cover the education expenses of the twin minor
daughters as admittedly, Rs.20,000/- p.m (@ Rs.10,000/- per
child) is being spent on the school fees of the twin daughters
alone. Per Contra, appellant-husband has refuted the said
contentions and has contended that appellant- wife is not
entitled to any maintenance as she is well educated and is
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
VINEET Digitally signed by
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:44:35 +0530
Page No.16/28
more than capable of sustaining herself, as her status is way
too high as compared to him.
22. Pertinently. for ascertaining the maintenance, the
following test has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors.
1997 (7) SCC 7, wherein it has been observed that:
“No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount
of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things,
to depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be
always there. The court has to consider the status
of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity
of the husband to pay having regard to his
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and
of those he is obliged under the law and statutory
but involuntary payments or deductions. The
amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should
be such as she can live in reasonable comfort
considering her status and the mode of life she was
used to when she lived with her husband and also
that she does not feel handicapped in the
prosecution of her case. At the same time, the
amount so fixed cannot be excessive or
extortionate…”
23. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as
Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 (arising
out of SLP (Crl) No. 9503/2018, dated 04.11.2020, has held
as under:
“(i) The objective of granting interim / permanent
alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not
reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the
failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to
the other spouse. There is no straightjacket formula
for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be
awarded. The factors which would weigh with the
Court inter alia are the status of the parties;
reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children;
whether the applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the applicant has any independent
source of income; whether the income is sufficient to
enable her to maintain the same standard of living as
she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home;
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR 16:44:42 +0530
Date: 2025.06.09
Page No.17/28
whether the applicant was employed prior to her
marriage; whether she was working during the
subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was
required to sacrifice her employment opportunities
for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking
after adult members of the family; reasonable costs
of litigation for a non-working wife”.
24. In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain AIR 2017 SC
(CIVIL) 1383, the Hon’ble Court has held that “the financial
position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be
material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An
order of interim maintenance is conditional on the
circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim
has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support.
It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is
educated and could support herself. The court must take into
consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the
spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is
dependent upon factual situations and the Court should
mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors
brought before it.”
25. Also, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual
income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and
dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain
under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken
into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of
maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to
the standard of living of the husband, as well as the
spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. A careful
and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors.
The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial
disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent,
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:44:49 +0530
Page No.18/28
and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed
to in her matrimonial home. Further, the maintenance
amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid
either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the
wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes
oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it
be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The
sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the
wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
26. Further, Hon’ble SC in Rajnesh v. Neha (Supra) has
confirmed the parameters of maintenance laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and the relevant observation is
as under:
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v.
Saroj Hegde [2007 SCC OnLine Del 622: (2007)
140 DLT 16] has laid down the following factors
to be considered for determining maintenance:
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the
claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has
to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a
similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education,
medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the
applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while
estimating the income of the non-applicant when
all the sources or correct sources are not
disclosed.
VINEET VINEET KUMAR
Digitally signed by
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:44:56 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.19/28
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC
is adjustable against the amount awarded under
Section 24 of the Act.”
27. Having discussed the principle of law, this court shall
now examine whether Ld. Trial Court was justified in the
facts and circumstances of the present case in passing the
impugned order or it erred in law (as contended by both the
Appellants) by awarding monthly interim maintenance @
Rs.30,000/- [Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the appellant-wife from the
month of October, 2019 onwards and Rs.20,000/- p.m. to
both the twin minor daughters (Rs.10,000/- each) from the
month of filing of Domestic Violence Complaint].
Pertinently, it is a settled law that courts while fixing interim
maintenance are not expected to dwell into minute and
excruciating details and facts which have to be proved by the
parties and some amount of guess work is required to be
done in the light of facts and circumstances of each case.
28. In the case in hand, primarily the ground upon which
appellant-husband seeks setting aside of impugned order, is
that the complainant/wife is equally qualified and is well
earning. It was forcefully argued on behalf of husband that
being qualified and earning, complainant /wife is not entitled
to any maintenance from the husband and it has also been
contended that she has not approached the court with clean
hands, as she is concealing her real status from the court.
Whereas, the appellant-wife has challenged the impugned
order to the extent of seeking enhancement of interim
maintenance amount by stating that the earning of
respondent-husband is much more than what has been
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:03 +0530
Page No.20/28
assessed by the Ld. Trial Court and also an attempt to
equalize the net income of complainant-wife and respondent-
husband by the trial court, was flawed. Thus, while seeking
to set aside the said order, an interim maintenance amount of
Rs.1.5 Lacs has also been sought. It is worth mentioning that
as per contents of the affidavits of the parties on record, the
income of husband is stated to be Rs. 80,000/- and that of the
wife is stated to be Rs. 44,190/-. The Ld. Trial Court while
passing the impugned order has taken the income of
complainant-wife to be around Rs. 6 lacs p.a. and that of the
husband to be around Rs. 89,000/- p.m. Although, this court
does not wish to dwell too much into the said assessment of
income by the trial court, but at the same time it is pertinent
to mention that some important aspects were ignored while
passing the impugned order by the trial court. Even though,
the grant of maintenance under the DV Act has not been
made dependent upon the expression ‘unable to maintain
herself’ and as such prima facie there are allegations of
commission of domestic violence upon the complainant,
both in the complaint filed u/s 12 DV Act as well as in the
DIR, yet this court cannot lose sight of the fact that the said
allegations are a matter of trial and are yet to be proved by
way of leading evidence, more so, as the husband has always
offered the complainant to reside with him along with their
minor daughters in the rented accommodation, which too is
stated to be a 3-BHK accommodation, just like the shared
household, more or less in the same area/vicinity, while
Complainant has always refused to reside with him for
reasons best known to her. Further, it is beyond
comprehension that if complainant was subjected to cruelty
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:10 +0530
Page No.21/28
as alleged and if at all, her Istridhan as mentioned in the
affidavit filed by her, is in possession of the respondents,
then why has she not sought registration of FIR against the
respondents in this regard under appropriate provisions of
law.
29. Further, it is worth mentioning that it is a normal
practice adopted by the parties engrossed in matrimonial
litigations to understate their respective incomes and in the
light of this fact, it wouldn’t be safe to presume the income
stated by both appellants in their affidavit to be gospel truth,
more so, as it is only self-serving submissions. Complainant-
wife has contended that respondent-husband has an income
of Rs. 2-2.5 lacs per month as well as has beneficial interest
in two immovable properties and owns jewellery worth
Rs.1.5 Crores, however, apart from bald submissions,
nothing seems to have been brought on record so far by the
complainant-wife to substantiate the said contention and thus
in the absence of any proof thereof, it may well be stated that
income mentioned in the affidavit of assets/liabilities/salary
slip filed on record by the husband has rightly been
considered, as per settled law, in order to ascertain interim
maintenance payable by the husband.
30. On the other hand, from the averments in the
complaint as well as from the contents of the affidavit of
assets and liabilities and the documents filed on record by
Appellant-Wife, the following facts emerge:
An amount of Rs. 14 lacs was spent in one year by the
appellant-wife on maintenance and education of minor
daughters since the date of separation, which by any stretch
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:17 +0530Page No.22/28
of imagination is a huge amount. The said amount is stated
to be lent by mother and sisters of appellant-wife, but no
document in this regard seems to have been filed on record
in support of the same. Also, no entry in this regard upon
receipt of any loan is visible in the bank statement and in
case it has been received in some other bank account, then
the same has not been disclosed by her.
Appellant-wife has spent around 2 lacs on Litigation charges
only for the DV case and even though she could have been
represented by her sister, who herself is an advocate, but she
is being represented by a Senior Counsel since 2019
onwards, which seems to perhaps indicate towards her
financial capacity in sustaining herself.
As per her own admission in the affidavit, monthly
withdrawals every month by the appellant-wife range from
Rs. 60,000/- to 70,000/-, while her income as the contents of
the said affidavit is merely Rs. 44,190/-, which clearly seems
to indicate that there are other sources of income for the
appellant-wife.
Monthly expenditure incurred by the appellant-wife on her
daughters is mentioned at Rs.1.43 lacs, while the total
monthly expenditure incurred stands at Rs.2.04 lacs, which
importantly is way more than the total income stated to be
earned by appellant-husband i.e. Rs. 89,000/- and this seems
to indicate her status is way more than what it perhaps was
in her matrimonial house.
Digitally signed
VINEET by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:23 +0530CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.23/28
The claim of husband that appellant-wife has inherited an
interest/share in 6-7 immovable properties, has not been
refuted anywhere.
Perusal of bank statement pertaining to Vijaya Bank clearly
reveals that an amount of Rs. 22,000/- was credited every
month to the account of appellant-wife, which has not been
sufficiently explained. Also, in the ITR pertaining to AY
2017-18, income has been shown corresponding to the
column- Income from House Property, which is stated to be
let out.
Despite the fact that appellant-wife has been citing shortage
of money for her own needs as well as that of minor
daughters and has thus been claiming enhancement of
maintenance amount, still it is inexplicable as to how she
could spare Rs 20,000/- p.a. as charity.
Appellant-wife is stated to be in Govt service on contract-
basis, but there is nothing on record to indicate that her
contract has not been extended at any point in time.
Lavish lifestyle and spendings on luxurious things is evident
from the contents of affidavit, which confirms the upper-
middle class status of the appellant-wife.
She has not been paying any rent, as she and the minor
daughters are stated to be residing in her parental home
along with her mother and sisters. She did not further
challenge the eviction order, which was confirmed by the
Divisional Commissioner in Appeal.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:30 +0530CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.24/28
Appellant-wife was able to sustain herself for 2 years, even
when she was enrolled in a Masters’ programme and was on
Leave without pay.
31. The abovesaid facts clearly indicate that there may be
concealment/understating of income on behalf of wife and
the same are guiding factors, which ought to have been taken
into consideration by the Ld. Trial Court before grant of
interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant-wife,
however, the said facts were ignored by the Ld. Trial court. It
may thus well be stated from the material available on record
that both the parties i.e. husband and wife were more or less
on the same footing in terms of income and it wouldn’t be
too far-fetched to say that appellant-wife was leading a more
luxurious life at her parental house than at the matrimonial
house. Therefore, it seems that Ld, Trial court has committed
an error by granting interim maintenance to her to the tune of
Rs. 10,000/- p.m.
32. Otherwise, it cannot be disputed that children are
primary responsibility of the father and they have to be
maintained fairly as per his worth and capacity. Ld. Trial
court vide impugned order, has awarded an interim
maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- p. m. (Rs. 10,000/-
each) to the minor daughters. Although, the impugned order
was not challenged by the Appellant-husband/father to the
abovesaid extent, yet appellant-wife has sought enhancement
by stating inadequacy of maintenance amount for the needs
of minor daughters. This court while dealing with the
question of enhancement of maintenance amount has to be
mindful of the fact that at the time of filing of petition, the
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:37 +0530
Page No.25/28
two minor daughters were studying in a reputed school at
Noida, whose fees is known to be on the higher side. In
addition to the above, the ever-increasing needs of growing
minor daughters as well as high cost of living also requires
handsome amount of money. Also, this court cannot lose
sight of law laid down in the judgment of Annurita Vohra v.
Sandeep Vohra 2004 (74) DRJ 99, wherein a formula was
devised for the purpose of fixing the amount of maintenance
by the Hon’ble High court of Delhi as it held that two
portions of the income are to be given to the husband(father
in the case in hand) since he has to incur extra expenses in
the course of making an earning and one share each to other
members who are entitled, which in the present case are the
minor daughters. Thus, in view of above discussion as well
as in the light of legal mandate, it may well be said that
amount of maintenance to the minor daughters ought to be
enhanced. Thus, applying the formula laid down in Annurita
Vohra (Supra) to the income of the Appellant-husband
assessed by the trial court, but balancing the interest of the
parties by keeping in mind that daughters are still minors and
their needs are yet to reach the highest levels, this court is of
the opinion that it would be appropriate to enhance the
interim maintenance amount payable to the minor daughters
to the tune of Rs.17,500/- each per month, from the date
mentioned in the impugned order.
33. However, in the end, it is important to mention that
this matter otherwise is pending before the Ld. Trial court
and in case any of the appellants is aggrieved, then he/she
may raise all their contentions/pleas before the Trial Court
VINEET Digitally signed by
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors. KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
VINEET KUMAR
16:45:44 +0530
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.26/28
and may lead evidence contrary to the case of each other
before the said court for the purpose of proving their
respective versions and may also during the course of cross
examination, disprove the case of the other, which may be
taken into consideration and appreciated by the said Court at
the time of final disposal of the complaint u/s 12 D.V. Act.
34. Thus, in view of above discussion, it is clear that
impugned order suffers from material illegality as well as
manifest error of law and fact. Suffice it to state that Ld.
Trial Court has erred by passing the impugned order and the
same warrants an interference by this court. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
35. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
Criminal Appeal no.237/2019 preferred by the appellant-
wife is allowed to the extent that amount of interim
maintenance granted to the minor daughters i.e. Rs 10,000/-
each is enhanced to Rs. 17,500/- each, totalling up to Rs.
35,000/-, whereas, Criminal Appeal no.238/2019 preferred
by the appellant-husband is allowed with direction that
respondent-wife is not entitled to any interim maintenance in
the present matter. It is, however, clarified that the amount so
ordered above to the minor daughters shall be adjustable
against the amount which has already been paid to appellant-
wife and arrears, if any, pertaining to the enhanced amount,
after adjustment, shall be paid within a period of three
months at the most and the said amount shall be subject to
final outcome of the complaint before the trial court. Further,
it is clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove by this
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:45:53 +0530
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.27/28
court shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the
case pending before the trial court.
A copy of this order along with trial Court record be
sent back to Ld. Trial Court.
Appeal files be consigned to record room.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09
16:46:03 +0530
Announced in the open court (Vineet Kumar)
on 09.06.2025 ASJ-02/West
Tis Hazari, Delhi.
CA No. 237/19 Aditi Aakash Marya Vs. Aakash Marya & Ors.
CA No. 238/19 Aakash Marya Vs. Aditi Aakash Marya
Page No.28/28