Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Renu on 5 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04:CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI: DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-017491-2021
CA No. 139/2021
Rajesh Kumar
S/o. Late Sh. Gyasi Ram,
R/o. H. No. 628/9, Subhash Nagar,
Lalit DJ Wali gali, Gurugram,
Haryana.
Also At:
R/o. 128/11, Subhash Nagar,
Gurugram, Haryana.
..........Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Renu
W/o. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o. H. No. 303, Katra,
Gul Khan, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
..........Respondent
Date of institution of Appeal : 16.12.2021
Date on which order reserved : 13.01.2025
Date on which order pronounced : 05.04.2025
ORDER
1. This is an appeal u/s. 29 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 1 of 17
to as DV Act) filed by the appellant Rajesh Kumar
against the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 in Ct. Case
No. 11746/2017, titled as ‘Renu Vs. Rajesh Kumar’
passed by the Court of Ms. Deepika Singh, Ld. MM-03
(Mahila Court), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has
filed one domestic violence petition against the appellant,
in which the respondent had filed an application u/s.
23(2) of PWDV Act for grant of interim maintenance and
vide order dated 27.10.2021, the ld. Trial Court decided
the interim relief application by granting maintenance of
Rs. 3,850/- per month each to the respondent and her
daughter till their entitlement from the date of filing of
the petition and till disposal.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed
the present appeal u/s. 29 of PWDV Act for setting aside
the impugned order dated 27.10.2021. Ld. Counsel for
the appellant has filed the present appeal on the
following grounds :-
a. That the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
b. That Ld. Trial has erred is ignoring the vital pieces of evidence
and facts of the case and has not property applied its judicial mind
to the facts of the matter.
c. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence which
has put on record on behalf of the revisionist/ applicant.
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 2 of 17
d. That the Ld. Trial Court has observed and wrongfully concluded
revisionist/applicant.
e. That the Hon’ble Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of
the revisionist/husband.
f. That the Hon’ble Trial Court has also not been considered that
the respondent wife has already taken divorce from the proper
court and also dismissed her own petition U/s 9 of HMA on the
merits.
g. That the respondent/wife has not been filed any appeal against
the same in the proper court of law so the decree in the both cases
has stood final.
h. That the trial Court has not considered the facts that the
revisionist/husband is regularly paying the interim maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- to the daughter i.e. Sakshi from 26.02.2018 to till date.
i) That the Hon’ble Trial Court also not considered the facts that the
respondent/wife has taken Rs.5,00,000/- as the first installment in
the year 2013 against the settlement arrived in the court of Session
Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and for the same she has herself
withdrawn her case of 125 CrPC in 2013 from the court of the then
MM Ms. Mona Tardi Karketa, MM, Central Tis Hazari Court and
the respondent/wife moved back from the second motion. She has
kept silent for return the given amount to the revisionist/husband
therefore, the Rs.5,00,000/- is still in the custody of the
respondent/wife. She is enjoying the interest of the said amount of
the revisionist/ husband from the year 2013. The respondent/wife
has not been explained till date the incurrence of the said amount
even after asking by the husband/revisionist.
j. That the Hon’ble Trial Court also not considered the copy of the
statement of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain, the owner of Dinesh Clothes
House, Holly Ground, Sadar Bazar, Gurugram dated 09.05.2019.
He was the summoned witness of the respondent/wife and at the
stage of cross examination in the court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi in the case vide ΗΜΑ Νο. 61821/2016
titled as Rajesh Kumar Versus Smt. Renu, the said witness stated
that the revisionist/husband is earning Rs.360/- per day and he also
stated that due to misbehaviour and aggressive nature of the
wife/respondent he ended the service of the revisionist/husband
from his shop and he further stated that the wife/respondent used to
mentally disturb him and the husband/ revisionist due to the family
issues and court cases, the husband/revisionist felt mental agony as
well as affected the business of the witness.
k. That the Hon’ble Trial Court ignored the copy of rent agreement
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 3 of 17
of the revisionist/husband that he is residing on the rented
accommodation and paying or Rs. 2,000/- at present and on
09.10.2018 he was paying monthly rent of Rs. Rs.1,000/- for the
rented accommodation at Subhash Nagar when he was earning
Rs.360/- per day.
It is prayed that the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court
may kindly be set aside.
4. Ld. Counsel for appellant has also filed written
submissions which are as follows:-
1. That the impugned order was passed by ld MM by ignoring the
settlement and receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the Respondent towards
permanent alimony in the year 2013 as well as the fact that the
marriage between Appellant and Respondent was dissolved by the
Family Court vide decree dated 01.10.2019.
2. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the date of
passing the impugned order, there was no domestic relationship
between Appellant and Respondent as the marriage between
Appellant and Respondent stood dissolved by a decree of divorce,
the domestic relationship automatically came to an end.
3. That the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act is not maintainable as well as impugned order is
liable to be set aside because it is admitted fact that the Respondent
and Appellant lastly lived together in the year 2003 and thereafter,
they have no domestic relationship. The Act came into existence
on 26 October 2006.
It is submitted that at the time of filing the complaint there was no
domestic relationship between them and at the time of passing the
impugned order the Respondent was not the wife of Appellant.
4. That as far as maintenance of daughter is concerned for which it
is submitted that she has not filed the complaint under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, therefore she is
not the aggrieved person. The Respondent filed the complaint for
herself and for daughter. It is submitted that the daughter attained
the age of majority on 10.03.2019 i.e. before passing the impugned
judgment but the Ld MM passed the impugned order ignoring that
the daughter has already been become major passed the impugned
order.
5. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the following
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 4 of 17
judgments to support his arguments :-
i) Vijay Verma vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr., Crl. M.C.
No. 3878/2009
ii) Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and Anr., Crl.
Appeal No. 1635/2011
iii) Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan, Crl. Appeal No.
627/2022
iv) Atul Amrut Raybole and Ors. vs. Shubhangi Atul Raybole
and Anr., Crl. Writ Petition No. 3209/2021.
v) Parvin Kumar Jain vs. Anju Jain, MAT. APP. (F.C)
226/2018 and CM APPL. 36723/2018
vi) Smt. Bismita Saikia @ Bismita Saikia Dutta vs. Pranjal
Dutta and Ors., Crl. Rev. P.1/2017
vii) Abhilasha versus Parkash, Crl. Appeal No. 615/2020.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also filed written
submissions which are as follows:-
1. That the revisionist filed by the revisionist is liable to be
dismissed as the same is a gross misuse of the process of law.
2. That the revisionist has filed the present revision to harass the
respondent and it is the wastage of the precious time of this
Hon’ble Court.
3. That the respondent filed the complaint under DV Act by
mentioning the cruelties which the revisionist and his family
members done on the respondent. After the marriage, the
revisionist and his family members used to taunt and hurl filthy
abuses at the respondent. On the occasion of Raksha Bandhan in
the year 1999, the revisionist and his family members did not take
back the respondent into matrimonial house when the respondent
came from her parental house. A panchayat was held and the
revisionist and his family members took the respondent at
matrimonial house and they assured that they will not commit any
cruelty upon the respondent but the revisionist and his family
members did not change their behaviour and the respondent had to
lodge complaint at CAW cell. A settlement arose on 17.01.2001
and the respondent again went to her matrimonial house, at that
time, the respondent was seven months pregnant. On 10.03.2001,CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 5 of 17
the respondent was suffering from labour pain but the revisionist
and his family members did not take care of the respondent and
after birth of daughter, their cruelties increased day by day and due
to these cruelties, the respondent was compelled to leave the
matrimonial house and come to her parental house with her
daughter. In April, 2003, the respondent went to her matrimonial
house subjected with but she was the cruelties by again the
revisionist and his family members and she had to again come to
the parental house.
4. That during the litigation, a compromise arrived between the
parties that they will take mutual divorce.
5. That but after first motion, the parties felt that their divorce may
effect the child, so, they decided to live together.
6. That but later, the appellant turned back from his wordings and
did not live with the respondent and the child even for one day and
filed the case u/s.13(1) (ia) HMA and the respondent filed the case
u/s.9 HMA. The court decreed the divorce case and dismissed the
case of the respondent.
7. That during the pendancy of the said cases, the respondent filed
the case u/s.12 DV Act.
8. That the respondent filed appeal through DLSA to set aside the
divorce order.
9. That in DV Act, the Ld.MM court has passed the interim
maintenance order by going through all facts and circumstances
and by applying judicial mind. It is further submitted that to avoid
the maintenance order of Rs.7,700/- p.m., the revisionist was
paying Rs.4000/- p.m but since many times, the revisionist is not
paying the said amount of Rs. 4,000/-p.m.
10. That a woman is entitled for maintenance in DV Act even after
her divorce and children are also entitled for maintenance till their
financially independent and in light of the said judgments, the
respondent and her children are entitled for maintenance from the
appellant.
7. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the following
judgments to support his arguments :-
i) Pooja Sharma vs. Arun Sharma, CM APPL. 73680/2024
M.A. 11083/2021.
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 6 of 17
8. This Court has heard the rival contentions advanced on
behalf of both the parties and has perused the record.
9. The PWDV Act is a special legislation meant to protect
the women against the menace of domestic violence. It is
a self contained Code which deals with the cases
constituting domestic violence and provides for the
remedies available to the victim. One of the objectives of
enactment of PWDV Act is to provide for a remedy
under the civil law to protect the women from being
victims of domestic violence and to prevent the
occurrence of domestic violence in the society. PWDV
Act has been enacted keeping in view the rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
10. The brief synopsis of list of events with dates as provided
by the appellant are as follows :-
DATES EVENTS
07.05.1999 Marriage was performed between Appellant and
Respondent.
17.01.2001 Dispute was settled between Appellant and
Respondent before CAW Cell, where the complaint
of Respondent against her husband and in-laws was
pending
On the complaint of Respondent FIR No. 163/2001,
under section 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered at
Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi
10.03.2001 From the marriage daughter was born, she is now 23
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 7 of 17
years 6 months & 17 days
April, 2003 Respondent left the matrimonial home and since then
she is residing separately
06.09.2009 Respondent for herself and daughter filed petition
under section 125 CrPC vide CC No. 281/4/2009
15.12.2011 Court of Ms. Geetanjali the then MM decided the
petition u. sec. 125 Cr PC directing the Appellant to
pay Rs. 1,500/- pm to the Respondent and Rs.
1,500/- to the daughter
23.05.2012 Ld. Court of Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the
Appellant and his family members from the charge
under section 498-A/406/34 IPC was registered at
Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi
03.04.2013 The dispute was settled before the Court of Ms.
Savita Rao ASJ Central Delhi in Crl. Rev No.
01/2013 filed by Respondent against the order of
acquittal dated 23.05.2023, whereby they agreed to
take divorce by mutual consent.
Respondent made a statement that she has settled
dispute with the Appellant for sum of Rs. 7,50,000
which shall be against full and final payment of all
the claims including maintenance (past, present and
future) of Respondent and daughter.
Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be payable by Appellant to
Respondent within one week, further amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- shall be payable within two months from
03.04.2013 and balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-
shall be payable to her at the time of filing the
second motion.
Annexure-A-1
08.04.2013 Appellant paid Rupees 2,50,000/- to the Respondent
vide DD No. 960877 dt 06.04.2013 at the time of
recording the statement in First Motion vide HMA
No. 107/2013.
Annexure-A-2
03.06.2013 Appellant paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Respondent as
per settlement, however after receipt of Rupees
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 8 of 17
5,00,000/- she did not turn up for filing the second
motion as per settlement.
26.10.2013 Appellant filed the petition under section 13 (1) (i-a)
(i- b) Hindu Marriage Act vide HMA No.
5861821/2016
06.01.2014 Respondent filed petition under section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act vide HMA No. 601/2017 for
Restitution of Conjugal Rites.
14.09.2017 Respondent filed complaint under section 12 (1 & 2)
read with section 18, 19, 20 & 22 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for
herself and for daughter by concealing the settlement
dated 03.04.2013 and receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- for all
her claims including her maintenance (Past, Present
and future), Permanent Alimony as well as for order
dated 08.04.2013 in HMA No. 107/2013 under
section 13 (B) (1) Hindu Marriage Act.
22.02.2018 Court of Principal Judge Family Court Central Delhi
in HMA No. 5861821/2016 (Divorce) & HMA No.
601/2017 (Restitution of Conjugal Rites) in
Application under section 24 of HMA for
maintenance pendent-lite, directed the appellant to
pay Rs. 4,000/- pm to the daughter.
Annexure A-3
01.10.2019 Court of Ms. Shail Jain Principal Judge family Court,
Central Delhi allowed the HMA No. 5861821/2016,
under section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) Hindu Marriage Act,
thereby dissolving the marriage of Appellant and
Petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act
(HMA No. 601/2017) for Restitution of Conjugal
Rites filed by Respondent was dismissed.
27.10.2021 Court of Ms. Deepika Singh MM-03 mahila Court
Central, Delhi ignoring the Reply filed by the
Appellant passed the impugned order directing the
Appellant to pay Rs. 3850/- pm to the
Respondent/wife and Rs. 3,850/- pm to the daughter.
Even when the order was passed by Ld MM the
daughter was already attained the age of majority and
she is not claimed maintenance for herself.
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 9 of 17
17.01.2022 The Decree of Divorce dated 01.10.2019 was
affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAT
APP (FC) no. 4/2022 and on the request of
Respondent/wife notice was issued to the
Appellant/Husband to explore the possibility of a
mediated settlement insofar as the claim for
permanent alimony of the Respondent/wife and the
maintenance of the daughter are concerned.
06.02.2024 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi disposed of the MAT
APP (FC) No. 4/2022. The para 2 of order reads as
under:
2. Since the parties have not been able to arrive at a
settlement and the appellant wishes to press for a
permanent alimony, recourse should be taken to the
appropriate provision under the Hinu Marriage Act,
1955.
Annexure A-6
March 2023 Appellant paid Rs. 4,000/- pm to the daughter w.e.f.
01.01.2018 till March 2023 even after disposal of
divorce petition on 01.10.2019 and even after
attainment of the age of the majority. Appellant paid
Rs. 1,88,000/- to the daughter after attaining her age
of majority.
11. In the present case, the appellant and the respondent were
married on 07.05.1999 and out of the said marriage, one
daughter was born on 10.03.2001. Following the dispute
and FIR bearing no. 163/2001 u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC PS
Subzi Mandi, the respondent left the matrimonial home
and since then she is residing separately alongwith the
daughter. On 06.09.2009, the respondent filed one
petition u/s. 125 Cr. P.C. and the Hon’ble Court directed
the appellant to pay Rs. 1,500/- each per month to the
respondent and the daughter. On 03.04.2013, the
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 10 of 17
appellant and the respondent before the ld. Revisionist
Court agreed to take divorce by mutual consent wherein
they settled the dispute for a sum of Rs. 7.5 Lacs which
shall be full and final payment for all the claims
including maintenance of the respondent and the
daughter. The appellant paid Rs. 2.5 Lacs on 08.04.2013
at the time of recording statement of first motion and also
paid Rs. 2.5 Lacs on 03.06.2013 but after receipt of Rs.
5 Lacs, the respondent did not turn up for the second
motion as per their settlement.
12. On 14.09.2017, the respondent filed the petition under
Domestic Violence Act in which the facts of the
settlement were concealed. On 22.02.2018, the ld.
Principal Judge, Family Court granted pendentelite
maintenance to the daughter of Rs. 4,000/- per month to
be paid by the appellant. Vide 01.10.2019, the ld. Judge
Family Court dissolved the marriage between the
appellant and the respondent while allowing the petition
u/s. 13 HMA by a decree of divorce. Vide impugned
order dated 27.10.2021, the ld. Trial Court directed the
appellant to pay Rs. 3,850/- each per month as
maintenance to the respondent and the daughter.
Thereafter, on 17.01.2022, the decree of divorce was
affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and vide
order dated 06.02.2024, the petition was disposed of with
the liberty to the respondent to take recourse under HMA
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 11 of 17
for permanent alimony.
13. The very first question that has arisen for consideration is
whether the respondent is entitled to maintenance under
DV Act. The Counsel for appellant has argued that the
domestic relationship between the appellant and the
respondent has come to an end by a decree of divorce
and therefore, the petition under DV Act is not
maintainable. It is further argued that the divorced wife is
not entitled to maintenance under DV Act.
14. The Domestic Violence Act does not use the word “wife”
for invoking the provisions of DV Act but rather defines
an aggrieved person. Section 2(a) of DV Act defines
aggrieved person as any woman who is, or has been, in
domestic relationship with the respondent and who
alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic
violence by the respondent. Thus, the definition of
aggrieved person includes any woman who had lived in
domestic relationship and was subjected to domestic
violence. Thus, the aggrieved person is not restricted to
wife.
15. The domestic relationship is defined in Section 2(f) of
DV Act as a relationship between two persons who live
or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared
household, when they are related by consanguinity,
marriage or through a relationship in the nature of
marriage, adoption or are family members living together
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 12 of 17
as a joint family.
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Juveria Abdul
Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Anr, LN IND
2014 SC 835 observed as follows :-
“An act of domestic violence once committed,
subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the
liability of the respondent from the offence
committed or to deny the benefit to which the
aggrieved person is entitled under the DV Act,
2005 including monetary relief u/s. 20, Child
Custody u/s. 21, Compensation u/s. 22 and
interim or ex-parte order u/s. 23 of the DV Act,
2005.”
17. It is true that for invoking the provisions of DV Act, the
domestic relationship must be in existence at the time of
filing of the complaint. It is held in numerous judgments
of the Hon’ble High Courts that after the decree of
divorce, the petition filed under the provisions of DV Act
is not maintainable as the domestic relationship has
already come to an end. Meaning thereby that after
passing of the decree of divorce, the petition under the
provisions of DV Act cannot be filed. However, it does
not affect the petition which has already been filed before
the passing of decree of divorce. In the present case, the
decree of divorce has been passed on 01.10.2019 and the
petition under DV Act was filed on 14.09.2017 i.e. before
the passing of decree of divorce. As such, it cannot be
said that the domestic relationship was not in existence at
the time of filing of petition under DV Act. Thus, the
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 13 of 17
present petition under DV Act is maintainable despite the
passing of the decree of divorce between the parties.
18. As far as the issue raised by the Counsel for the appellant
is concerned that since 2003, the parties are living
separately and therefore, domestic violence is not made
out, such issue needs to be decided by the ld. Trial Court
after leading of evidence. As such, no observation is
required to be given in this appeal which is restricted to
challenge of the interim order of maintenance.
19. Now, coming to the question of maintenance, the ld. Trial
Court vide impugned order directed the appellant to pay
Rs. 3,850/- per month to the respondent. It is apparent
that the ld. Trial Court has not taken into consideration
the fact of settlement between the parties which took
place before the revisionist Court wherein the parties
agreed to take mutual divorce for a full and final
settlement of Rs. 7.5 Lacs which includes all the claims
for maintenance for the respondent and the daughter. The
respondent has not disputed that she has received Rs. 5
Lacs from the appellant towards the aforesaid settlement.
The parties had filed the first motion of divorce but the
second motion of divorce could not be entered upon and
as such, the settlement remained uncomplied.
20. It is thereafter in 2017, the respondent filed the petition
under DV Act and claimed maintenance concealing the
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 14 of 17
facts of settlement vide which she had already received
Rs. 5 Lacs from the appellant. The impugned order
passed by the ld. Trial Court also does not talk about the
settlement and the receipt of Rs. 5 Lacs by the
respondent. In such circumstances, the impugned order
passed by the ld. Trial Court granting the maintenance of
Rs. 3,850/- to the respondent does not seem to be a
correct order and it is accordingly set aside to that extent.
21. Another question that arises for the consideration of this
Court whether the daughter of the appellant is entitled to
the maintenance or not. In this regard, Counsel for
appellant has argued that the daughter was not a party to
the complaint and also that on the date of the impugned
order, she was already major and as such, she is not
entitled to maintenance as the DV Act defines the child
to be a person below 18 years of age.
22. It is correct that the daughter was not a party to the
petition under DV Act which was filed in 2017. The date
of birth of the daughter is 10.03.2001 which means that
she was minor on the date of filing petition under DV
Act. The aggrieved person has per DV Act is entitled to
claim maintenance for herself as well as for the child
under Section 20 of DV Act. Thus, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no need for a daughter to
be a party as petitioner for claiming maintenance as her
right could have been very well invoked by the
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 15 of 17
respondent mother.
23. Going further to the question whether the child is entitled
to maintenance upto the age of 18 years or further till
he/she completes graduation. In this regard, Counsel for
the appellant argued that the definition of child provides
only till 18 years. The ld. Counsel has also relied upon
few judgment of Abhilasha vs. Prakash, Crl. Appeal No.
615/2020 of the Hon’ble Apex Court and argued that the
major daughter can claim maintenance from her father
u/s. 20 of the HAMA and not under the DV Act.
24. The aforesaid judgment relied upon by the ld. Counsel
for the appellant is in respect of Section 125 Cr. P.C. and
not with respect to DV Act and as such, it cannot be said
to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
25. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Praveen Kumar Jain
vs. Anju Jain, MAT APP (FC) 226/2018 held that a child
who is pursuing his education would be entitled to
maintenance u/s. 26 of HMA even after he attains the age
of maturity, till the time he is pursuing his education and
is not financially independent. The Hon’ble Court relied
upon the judgment of Urvashi Aggarwal case and Sapna
Paul case and observed as follows:-
“The judgment in Urvashi Aggarwal (Supra) was
followed by one of us [ Amit Bansal, J.] in Sapna
Paul vs Ruhin Paul, 2024 SCC OnLine DEL 372,
which was in the context of proceedings underCA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 16 of 17
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (DV Act). It was held that the
obligation of a father towards his child does not
end when the child attains majority even though
he is still pursuing his studies.”
26. In the present case, the daughter is still stated to be
pursuing her graduation. Vide impugned order, the ld.
Trial Court had granted maintenance of Rs. 3,850/- per
month to the daughter till she is legally entitled which
essentially means that the daughter is entitled to
maintenance not only she attains majority but till the age
she completes her graduation.
27. With these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant
is hereby partly allowed.
28. The impugned order is partly set aside to the extent of
grant of maintenance to the respondent and is upheld for
the grant of maintenance to the daughter.
29. Copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent to the
concerned Court for information and necessary action as
per law.
30. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open
Court on 05th April, 2025
Digitally signed
SUSHIL by SUSHIL (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI)
ANUJ TYAGI ASJ-04/CENTRAL/DELHI
ANUJ Date: 05.04.2025 (VR)
TYAGI 13:12:00 +0530
2025.04.05
CA No. 139/2021 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renu Page No. 17 of 17