Delhi District Court
Rahul Tripathi vs Aprajita Gautam on 7 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010036172024
CA/156/2024
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam
Rahul Tripathi
S/o Shri Prem Chandra Tripathi
Permanent R/o C-40 Pocket 7 Sector 82
Kendriya Vihar 2 Noida UP
Currently residing at :
H-803 Aditya Urban Casa
Sector 78, Noida 201301 .........APPELLANT
VERSUS
Aprajita Gautam
W/o Rahul Tripathi
D/o Late Om Prakash Mishra
R/o Flat No. 6, Second Floor,
House no. 45/3, Gali No. 1 Ignou Road
Neb Serai, Saket, New Delhi ....... RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.04.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 13.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under section 29 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) filed for setting aside the
impugned order dated 10.04.2024, passed by Ld. MM,
Mahila Court-01, South, Saket in the matter titled
“Aprajita Tripathi Vs. Rahul Tipathi and Ors.” bearing CT
Cases no. 2375/2023, whereby appellant/husband was
directed to make payment of Rs.15,000/- per month to PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 1 of 17 PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.03.10
17:26:34 +0530
respondent/wife, so as to enable her to find an alternative
accommodation.
2. Briefly stated a petition under section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
came to be filed by respondent/wife against her
husband/appellant, her mother-in-law and father-in-law
seeking various reliefs under provisions of Act. From the
pleadings in the petition under section 12 of D.V. Act, it
appears that the appellant was married to respondent on
05.06.2022. No child was born out of said wedlock. As per
respondent/wife, she was subjected to domestic violence
by appellant and his family members. As per
respondent/wife, she has been sustaining herself with great
hardships. The respondent/ wife, having left with no other
course of action, filed the petition under section 12 of D.V.
Act. In the said complaint, several relief has been sought
against the appellant/husband under Section 18, 19, 20 &
22 of the D.V. Act.
3. Learned trial court, after receiving the said petition,
issued summons to the appellant/husband on 14.12.2023
and his mother and father vide order dated 10.04.2024.
During the proceedings of the said petition, an application
u/s 19 DV Act for grant of urgent ad-interim-relief was
moved by the wife and for the first time after summoning,
Ld counsel for the husband/appellant argued that learned
trial court was not having territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the said application u/s 19 of D.V. Act. The said
application of the wife was allowed by learned trial court
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Page 2 of 17
PATHAK Date:
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam 2025.03.10
17:26:37
+0530
vide impugned order dated 10.04.2024, whereby the
husband was directed to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- per
month to the aggrieved so as to enable her to find an
alternative accommodation for herself till final disposal of
application.
4. Vide impugned order, Ld Trial Court while deciding
the application for interim relief, made following relevant
observations:-
“During submissions, the respondent has admitted that he
has been paying the rent of the rental premises of Noida, where the
belongings of the aggrieved are kept. He has further admitted that
when the aggrieved came for collection of the rented furniture
articles, he had also asked the aggrieved to take away all her
belongings.
Thus, from the own admissions of the respondents, it is
evident that he was the one paying for the rental expenses of the
premises in which he and aggrieved was residing earlier despite that
the aggrieved is working and that he is now asking the aggrieved to
take away all her belongings. As per version of the aggrieved, she
has resorted to residing with her uncle in Neb Sarai because of the
domestic violence committed against her. Upon oral query to the
aggrieved regarding the living arrangement in such uncles’ house,
she has stated that it is a 2 BHK flat and her uncle, aunt and their
children are residing in such house. Accordingly, it is not deemed fit
to ask the aggrieved to collect the belongings from the premises
where she was residing with the respondent and expect her to dump
the same in her uncle’s house where she is stated to be currently
residing. She has not filed any rent agreement and thus, it is evident
that she has not taken any premises on rent.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, at this stage, as a way
of ad-interim measure to protect the shelter and to ensure that she
has a place to keep her belongings and keeping in mind that the
rental expenses were earlier also being borne by the respondent, he
is directed to make payment of Rs.15,000/- per month to the
aggrieved so as to enable her to find an alternative accommodation
for herself till final adjudication of this application. The amount is to
be paid by 15th day of every month starting from this month.”
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.10
17:26:41
+0530CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 3 of 17
5. The appellant being aggrieved with the said order
has assailed the same on various grounds which can be
summarized as under:-
i. that the impugned order has been passed in
complete contradiction to the fact and documents
placed on record by the respondent in the DV case.
ii. that the Ld. Trial court has passed the impugned
order seizing itself of the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the DV case, despite recording that the
appellant and respondent got married in Noida, have
only lived together in Noida, respondent is working in
Noida and that the respondent has filed a vakalatnama
stating that she is living with her mother and brother in
Noida.
iii. that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration that the respondents’ uncle (Mausa) has
filed an affidavit stating that she has been residing with
him since June 2023, but he has given a rent agreement
which has been entered into by him and his landlord on
04.12.2023.
iv. that the Ld. Trial court ought to have considered the
reliefs sought by the respondent in the DV case which
would have made the ascertainment of territorial
jurisdiction amply clear as throughout the DV case, the
respondent has made false allegations of domestic
violence and abuse in the appellant’s parents house,
where admittedly the respondent has been residing
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Page 4 of 17
PATHAK Date:
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam 2025.03.10
17:26:45
+0530
since her marriage till shifting into a rented premises in
Noida.
v. that the respondent has never resided in Delhi and
has not filed on record a single document to show her
residence in New Delhi.
vi. that the Ld. Trial court has not given any reason to
pass the said impugned order without deciding the issue
of jurisdiction at the first instance.
vii. that the Ld. MM did not consider the documents
filed by the appellant, wherein the respondent has filed
his Vakalatnama before Ld. MM court in Noida on
15.12.2023 in DV case filed by her mother, stating that
she is residing in 0-1208 Amrapali Silicon City, Sector
76, Noida.
viii. that the impugned order passed by Ld. MM suffers
from legal infirmities and is liable to be set-aside.
6. On the basis of above grounds the appellant has
prayed as under:-
a) Set aside order dated 10.04.2024 passed by
the court of Ms. Deeksha Madan, Ld. MM Mahila
Court, South District, New Delhi in CT Case No.
2375/2023 for lack of jurisdiction as envisaged
under Section 27 of the DV Act and being in
contravention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment of Rajnesh Vs. Neha. PURSHOTTAM
PATHAKDigitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.03.10
17:26:48 +0530CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 5 of 17
b) Dismiss the DV case of the Respondent
bearing Ct. Case no. 2375/2023 for lack of
jurisdiction.
c) Pass any such further order (s) as may be
deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and in the interest of justice.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/husband argued on the
line of grounds taken in the instant petition. During the
course of arguments, counsel for appellant submitted that
the marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized
at Noida, U.P. and both the parties are having permanent
residence at Noida. She argued that the respondent after
marriage resided in her matrimonial home in Noida and
thereafter in a rented house, which is also in Noida. She
submitted that the respondent has no documents to show
her residence in Neb Sarai, South Delhi and has also not
given any reason as to why she is residing in Neb Sarai
with her Mausaji. Moreover, the respondent is presently
working in Noida and also living with her mother and
brother in Noida. She further submitted that respondent
has claimed that she resided with her uncle in Delhi at the
time of filing of the present complaint but the said fact is
not correct. Merely residing of the complainant/respondent
along with her uncle at Delhi for a temporary period does
not mean that Delhi Courts is having territorial
jurisdiction. Also, the respondent withdrew her first DV
case as she had not filed any document to show her
residence in Delhi and only to make jurisdiction, she has Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.10
17:26:52
+0530CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 6 of 17
filed the new DV Act complaint with a rent agreement
dated 04.12.2023 of her uncle and his affidavit that she is
residing with him since 07.06.2023 at Neb Sarai, Saket. In
fact, the said rent agreement was procured by the
respondent after filing the previous complaint case in order
to attract the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Court. That in
the present case, both parties are neither residing
temporarily/permanently nor working in the territory of
Delhi. She submitted that the respondent in one of her
statements before CAW cell has mentioned Sector 76,
Noida as her address. She stated that the respondent/wife
in order to harass or create pressure upon the
appellant/husband, filed the present complaint in Delhi.
Therefore, no cause of action has arisen in the territorial
jurisdiction of Learned Trial court. It is prayed that Ld.
Trial court has not considered the aforesaid material facts,
therefore, the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 is liable to
be set aside.
8. Ld. Counsel for appellant/ husband in support of her
arguments has placed reliance upon the judgment of
Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs. Mamta Pandey 2010 (171)
DLT 565 and Sathyanath & Anr. Vs. Sarojamani (Civil
Appeal No. 3680 of 2022) passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ wife
argued that the impugned order is a well reasoned order
and is based on settled legal principles and does not call
for any interference. It is submitted that the instant appeal
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Page 7 of 17
Date:
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam
2025.03.10
17:26:55
+0530
has been filed with sole intention of harassing the
respondent/wife. She further submitted that the respondent
was residing with her uncle in a rented accommodation in
Delhi at the time of filing of complaint. Ld. counsel has
argued that impugned order is an ad-interim order passed
in consideration to the compelling circumstances, on the
basis of admissions made by husband that he has been
paying the rent of rental premises at Noida, where
belongings of wife are kept. Ld. counsel submitted that
vide order dated 14.12.2023, Ld. Trial court after taking
cognizance issued summons to the appellant, however,
despite opportunity the appellant did not challenge the said
order and in the garb of present appeal, he is seeking the
dismissal of Trial Court proceedings for lack of
jurisdiction. She submitted that the question of jurisdiction
is a mixed question of law and facts which can only be
decided by the Trial court after the recording of evidence.
Ld. counsel has further submitted that similar contention
raised by the appellant before Hon’ble Supreme Court
were dismissed being devoid of any merit. Moreover, in
light of the aforesaid facts, Delhi court has territorial
jurisdiction to try the complaint filed u/s 12 of the DV Act.
10. Ld. Counsel for respondent in support of her
argument has also placed her reliance upon the following
citations:- Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. UOI & Anr. 2013 SCC
OnLine Del 4844, Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs. Mamta
Pandey, 2010 (118) DRJ 625, K. C. Vijayankumara and
Another Vs. Smt. S. Geetha, ILR 2020 KAR 4327,
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 8 of 17 2025.03.10
17:26:59
+0530
Shyamlal Devda and ors. Vs. Parimala, (2020) 3 Supreme
Court Case 14, Vikas Rastogee Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.
2014 AHC 7063 and Rabindra Nath Sahu & Another Vs.
Sm. Sushila Sahu, 2016, SCC OnLine 592.
11. On the strength of these arguments, Ld counsel for
respondent/wife has argued for dismissal of present
appeal.
12. I have heard counsel for appellant/husband, Ms.
Rosemary Raju and counsel for respondent/wife, Ms.
Tanya Bhutani on the point of territorial jurisdiction and
also on the ad-interim relief. I have also gone through the
reply filed by the respondent/wife and have perused the
trial court record carefully.
13. After having gone through the rival submissions of
both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that a
short question arises before this court as to whether Delhi
Court has territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the
application u/s 12 of D.V. Act.
14. Before dealing with the said aspect, it is relevant to
refer to the appropriate provision of D.V. Act as well as
case law. Section 27 of D.V. Act reads as under:-
27. Jurisdiction.-(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class
or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local
limits of which- (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily
resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent
resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of
action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection
order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this
Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable
throughout India.” Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 9 of 17
2025.03.10
CA/156/2024 17:27:03
+0530
15. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of D.V. Act,
particularly clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 27 D.V.
Act, it is apparent that the court has jurisdiction where
aggrieved persons permanently or temporarily resides or
carries on business or is employed.
16. Further, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
case Eshan Joshi Vs Suman, Cr. Misc No. M-32351 of
2016 held as under:-
“13. The question regarding territorial jurisdiction has been
raised before several High Courts in Hima Chugh vs. Pritam Ashok
Sadaphule & Ors, 2013(19) RCR (Criminal) 161, Sharad Kumar
Pandey vs. Mamta Pandey, 2010(7) RCR (Criminal) 1389, Rabindra
Nath Sahu and anther vs. Smt. Susila Sahu, 2017(1) RCR (Criminal)
312, Vikas Rastogee vs. State of U.P. and another, 2014(16) RCR
(Criminal) 73. In Hima Chugh and Sharad Kumar Pandey (supra),
Delhi High Court has held that temporary residence means where an
aggrieved person is compelled to take shelter or to take job or do
some business, in view of domestic violence within her matrimonial
home. However, temporary residence does not include residence in a
lodge or hostel or an inn or taking up residence at a place only for
filing a domestic violence case. It must not be a fleeting residence,
where a woman comes only for contesting the case and otherwise
does not reside there. In Rabindra Nath Sahu and another (supra)
Orissa High Court has held that temporary residence includes a
place where an aggrieved person was compelled to reside in view of
commission of domestic violence, where she may not have decided
to reside permanently or for a considerable length of time, but for
the time being. In Vikas Rastogee (supra) Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court has held that aggrieved person can initiate proceedings from
temporary residence and that question of temporary residence is a
mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided by Revisional
Court.
14. Section 27 of the D.V. Act permits a court to entertain a
complaint of a person residing temporarily within its jurisdiction.
Needless to say that after being subjected to domestic violence, it
may not be possible for a woman to reside within the same
jurisdiction as where the incident of domestic violence occurred and
would shift and relocate to a place where she can reside/pick up a
job or has some support, be it with her parents of near kith and kin.
In the instant case, the respondent is residing with her sister, a close
kith and kin after she left Bangalore and her matrimonial home. The
son of the respondent is now studying within the tricity of
Chandigarh, as would be evident Sharad from the school fee receipts
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAKPage 10 of 17
PATHAK Date:
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam 2025.03.10
17:27:07
+0530
that have been annexed. The argument raised that the son of the
respondent was studying in Bangalore and residence in Chandigarh
is fleeting, is not sustainable. The minor child was studying and
stayed in Bangalore only to complete his session and not be shifted
midterm. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent is residing
with her sister only on account of filing of complaint under the D.V.
Act and courts at Chandigarh would not have jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint.”
17. Bare perusal of the aforesaid law laid down in
Eshan Joshi (Supra), it is apparent that a victim can shift
and relocate to a place where she can reside/pick up a job
or has some support, particularly after the alleged incident
of domestic violence.
18. The appellant/husband to show that respondent/wife
is not living at her Delhi address has filed several
documents such as copy of Federal bank Statement of the
Complainant showing address of the complainant as
Noida, copy of ITR’s of the complainant dated 31.12.2023
showing Dwarka address of the complainant, copy of
vakalatnama filed by the complainant in the Senior Citizen
case filed by the respondent no. 3 in Noida showing the
complainant’s address as Noida, copy of complaint filed
by the complainant in Godda, Jharkhand, stating that she
has been living with her nani in Godda since September
2023, copy of FIR no. 8/2024 dated 13.05.024, registered
at PS Godda, Jharkhand along with true typed copy of the
FIR and application under Section 156 (3) filed by the
complainant before District Magistrate, Godda along with
affidavit. However, from perusal of these documents it
appears that the respondent/wife has mentioned her Delhi
address in several documents. In the FIR no. 008 dated
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.10
Page 11 of 17
17:27:11CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam
+0530
13/05/2024, registered at PS Mahila, District Godda and in
the complaint no. 435/2024 dated 30.04.2024 filed before
CJM Godda the respondent/wife has given her present
address as Gali no. 06 Ignou Road Saket Delhi. Moreover,
the petition under section 12 DV Act and the affidavit filed
on 22.07.2023 also shows the respondent to be residing at
her Neb Sarai Saket address.
19. If the present case is tested upon the touchstone of
principles as laid down in aforesaid cases, it is clear that
respondent/wife had set up a home at Delhi after being
thrown out of her matrimonial home. Though Ld. Counsel
for appellant had vehemently argued that the shifting by
respondent to Delhi had no reasonable nexus with alleged
domestic violence committed by respondent, however in
my considered view, the shifting of respondent was
preceded by incidents of domestic violence committed by
appellant against her, who must be going lot of mental
distress due to straining of relationship and therefore urge
of respondent to stay at Delhi with her uncle (mausaji),
cannot be faulted with. The plea of appellant in this regard
is therefore without merit and liable to be dismissed. In the
present case, it has been shown by the respondent that she
was residing along with her uncle at Delhi address at the
time of filing of complaint u/s 12 of the DV Act.
20. Further, the contentions of appellant/husband that
respondent/wife has shifted to Delhi just to create and
confer jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, is a disputed question
of fact requiring evidence and cannot be decided by this Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 12 of 17
PATHAK Date:
2025.03.10
17:27:18
+0530
court at this stage. It is evident from record that the
appellant was summoned in the instant case by Ld Trial
Court vide order dated 14.12.2023, which was never
challenged by appellant within stipulated time (i.e. 30 days
as per section 29 of Act) on the point of territorial
jurisdiction. Therefore, the present appeal so far as it
impugns the territorial jurisdiction of Ld Trial Court, is
barred by limitation.
21. In addition to that, Trial court record transpires that
before passing the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court had
called for a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) from the
concerned Protection Officer, which forms part of the trial
court record. The page 1 of said report reveals the present
address of respondent/wife as flat no. 6, second floor,
house no. 45/3, Gali No.01, IGNOU Road, New Delhi.
22. It is settled law that though a Magistrate, when
petitioned under Section 12 (1) of the Act, is not obliged to
call for and consider the DIR before issuing notice to the
respondent, however, if the DIR has already been
submitted, then that should be considered, in view of the
proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act. Reliance is placed
upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case
Shambhu Prasad Singh vs Manjari, Crl.M.C. 3083/2011 &
Crl.M.A.10914/2011 dated 17th May 2012.
23. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position, since
the domestic violence report is already on record, the same
has an important bearing as far as the question of territorial
Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 13of 17
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Date:
2025.03.10
17:27:21 +0530
jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court and summoning of
appellant/husband is concerned. As I have mentioned
above, since DIR has clearly mentioned the present
address of respondent/wife as that of flat no. 6, second
floor, house no. 45/3, Gali No.01, IGNOU Road, New
Delhi. Therefore, Ld. Trial Court had territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the
respondent/wife.
24. Further, on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction,
Hon’ble Apex Court in case Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs
Parmila, Crl Appeal No.141 of 2020 dated 22.01.2020
held as under:-
“10. In so far as the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru Court, as pointed
out by the High Court, Section 27 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 covers the situation. Section 27 of the
Act reads as under:-
“27. Jurisdiction –
(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits
of which –
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or
carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed;or
(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to
grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try
offences under this Act
(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout
India.”
A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that the
petition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a court
where the “person aggrieved” permanently or temporarily resides or
carries on business or is employed. In the present case, the
respondent is residing with her parents within the territorial limits of
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. In view of Section 27(1)
(a) of the Act, the Metropolitan Magistrate court, Bengaluru has the
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the
offence. There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Page 14 of 17
PATHAK Date:
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam 2025.03.10
17:27:26
+0530
In the result, Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 filed against the appellants
No.3 to 13 is quashed and this appeal is partly allowed. The learned
VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru shall proceed
with Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 against appellants No.1, 2 and 14 and
dispose the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”
25. Therefore, the plea of appellant/husband that Ld
Trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint filed by respondent/wife is without merit and
same stands rejected.
26. Now coming to the legality of ad-interim order, the
Ld. counsel for appellant has contended that the impugned
order for ad-interim relief has been passed against the law
without considering the submissions of Ld. counsel for
appellant/husband and the documents on record. In the
present case, Ld. Trial court has awarded Rs.15,000/ per
month to the aggrieved so as to enable her to find an
alternative accommodation. The Ld. Trial court has
noticed that the husband has asked the aggrieved to take
away all her belongings, whereas she is residing with her
uncle in Neb Sarai in a 2 BHK flat. Accordingly,
aggrieved can not be asked to collect the belongings from
the premises where she was residing with the respondent
and expect her to dump the same in her uncle’s house
where she is stated to be currently residing. The appellant
herein has not denied that they both were living in a rented
premises and now the wife has been asked to take away
her belongings from the rented premises. The impugned
order was passed concerning the urgency that the landlord
of tenanted flat in Noida, where goods of wife were lying,
Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM
Page 15 of 17
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam
PATHAK
CA/156/2024 Date:
2025.03.10
17:27:30 +0530
had instituted a case in SDM court and same was pending
for order on the date on which impugned order was
passed. The order was passed on admission of husband
that he was paying for the rental expenses and that in case
the aggrieved had to take her belongings, she will have no
place to keep them. The Trial court has only assessed the
Ad-interim maintenance. At this stage the Trial court has
to only form a prima facie opinion. Ad-interim
maintenance is only tentative and subject to fixation of
interim or final maintenance.
27. Therefore, the trial court rightly taking into
consideration the urgency and that the husband/ appellant
was already paying rent, has directed the appellant/
husband to pay 15,000/- per month to the aggrieved wife/
respondent, so as to enable her to find an alternative
accommodation. None of the judgments relied upon by Ld
counsel for appellant comes to his aid in the factual matrix
of the present case.
28. With these observations, it is held that the Trial
Court’s award of 15,000/- per month to the aggrieved so as
to enable her to find an alternative accommodation is fully
justifiable in view of the material available on record.
There is no impropriety in the impugned order. Hence,
appeal filed by appellant Rahul Tripathi stands dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
29. The aggrieved wife may apply before Ld. Trial
Court for enforcement of order. Both the parties shall be at
Digitally signed
by
PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam 16
Page of
PATHAK 17 PATHAK
Date: 2025.03.10
17:27:35 +0530
liberty to move application u/s 25 (2) of DV Act for
modification, if circumstances so require in future and
such application can be moved before Ld. Trial Court.
30. Copy of the judgment be given to the Ld. counsels
forthwith.
31. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to
the Ld. Trial Court.
32. Appeal file be consigned to the record room after
Digitally signed by
due compliance. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
PATHAK Date: 2025.03.10
17:27:40 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH)
07th DAY OF MARCH, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D
(This judgment contains total 17 signed pages)
CA/156/2024 Rahul Tripathi Vs. Aprajita Gautam Page 17 of 17