Delhi District Court
Sh. Yash Malhotra vs Sonal Dhingra on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINEET KUMAR:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (Appeal) No. 80/23
Yash Malhotra
S/o Sh. Mahender Malhotra
R/o H. No. D-48, UGF,
Surajmal Vihar, Delhi 110092.
............... Appellant
Versus
Sonal Dhingra
W/o Sh. Yash Malhotra
D/o Sh. Jagdish Chandra Dhingra
R/o 155, Old Tezabmil,
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi 110032.
............... Respondent
ORDER
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 29 of The
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as D.V. Act) is filed against order
dated 01.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned
order’), passed in Complaint Case No. 391/2021 by Ld. MM
(Mahila Court-01) (Shahdara), KKD Courts, Delhi, whereby
Ld. MM (Mahila Court-01) (Shahdara), KKD courts, Delhi
(In short ‘the Trial Court’) has directed the appellant to pay
Rs.20,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and additionally
Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards rent for the
complainant/respondent into her bank account from the date
of filing of the present petition i.e. 03.03.2021 till disposal of
the said complaint or till such time, complainant/respondent
is entitled to receive the same, whichever is earlier.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 16:48:34 +0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 1/17
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the
present appeal are that on 03.03.2021, the respondent 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 as well as his other family members and
various reliefs under Section 18/19/20/22 of the Act were
sought by way of said complaint; vide Order dated
01.05.2023, the Ld. Trial Court allowed the application
seeking interim maintenance and directed the Appellant to
make payment of interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as
interim maintenance and additionally Rs.15,000/- p.m.
towards rent for the complainant/respondent into her bank
account from the date of filing of the present petition i.e.
03.03.2021 till disposal of the said complaint or till such
time, complainant/respondent is entitled to receive the same,
whichever is earlier and it has been further mentioned in the
aforesaid order that any amount already paid in any other
proceedings shall be adjusted in the said matter upon actual
payment. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned order, present
appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the said
order.
3. Reply to the present appeal is filed by the respondent,
wherein all the allegations of appellant have been denied and
a prayer for dismissal of the present appeal has been made.
4. Before proceeding further to adjudicate the present
appeal, it is important to reproduce the relevant part of the
impugned order, which is as under:
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:48:54 +0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 2/17
“In view of the above discussion, respondent no. 1 is
directed to make payment of interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month and R1 is further directed to make
additional payment of Rs.15,000/- towards rent for the
complainant to secure an alternative accommodation of the
same level as she enjoyed in her matrimonial house. The
said amount be paid directly to complainant into bank
account of complainant from the date of filing of present
petition i.e. 03.03.2021 till disposal of the present complaint
or till such time, complainant is entitled to receive the same,
whichever is earlier. Any amount already paid in any other
proceedings shall be adjusted in the present matter upon
actual payment.”
5. The impugned order has been challenged primarily on
the following grounds:
a. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent is
an independent and educated women having no dependent
(child) to take care of. Ld. Trial Court also failed to
consider the fact that respondent has monthly salary of
Rs.50,000/- as private school teacher and she also earns
Rs.25,000/- as a freelance tutor, therefore, she can manage
herself in any manner very easily.
b. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that during the initial
days of the marriage, respondent told appellant that she was
forced to do this marriage as she loves someone else and to
make reputation in society, her father dragged her into this
marriage, therefore, she used to taunt the appellant by saying
that “tum to ganje ho tumse jyada handsome toh mera
boyfriend hai”.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:49:03 +0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 3/17
c. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent
had left her matrimonial house with her own consent on
multiple occasions. In addition to this, respondent used to
fight with the appellant and had never participated in any
household activity ever as she does not want to do any
household work and always wanted an independent life.
d. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent
had always forced the appellant to live separately from his
old age parents despite knowing the fact that being the
single son, appellant has sole responsibility of his old aged
parents.
e. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant has
filed a divorce petition against respondent u/s 13 (1) of
HMA, 1955, which is still pending adjudication.
f. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that
respondent has dragged his married sister Tripti Chopra,
Chachia Saas, chachia sasur, brother-in-law in false
litigation as all of them have separate accommodation.
g. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that
respondent used to talk with her boyfriend on video call in
night times during honeymoon trip in front of appellant and
threatened to implicate him in false case by making false
police complaint in Sri Lanka.
h. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that on
15.06.2020 respondent gave suicide threats to the appellant
and his family and when appellant informed this fact to the
family of respondent, they threatened and started fighting
with the appellant.
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:49:10 +0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 4/17
i. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that
due to mental trauma, appellant has lost his job on
07.06.2021 and presently, he is earning Rs.28,000/- p.m. by
doing his individual practice as a Practicing Company
Secretary.
j. Ld. Trial Court did not calculate the actual financial
status of the respondent during the year of marriage i.e.
2019-20 as an amount of Rs.10,22,700/- has been shown as
credits in her bank account during said period.
k. That appellant shall suffer irreparable loss or injury
which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if
impugned order is not set aside by this court.
6. Ld. Counsel for appellant has argued on the lines of
grounds taken in the instant appeal and submitted that the
impugned order has been passed only on the basis of few
credit entries in the form of cash deposits in the bank
account of appellant. However, the credit entries reflecting
in the bank account of the respondent/wife have been
overlooked/ignored by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the
impugned order to ascertain her actual income. He has
further argued that respondent is guilty of filing false
affidavit before Ld. Trial Court as while hearing arguments,
when a specific enquiry was made by Ld. Trial Court from
respondent as to why her salary from school is not reflecting
in her bank account statement filed on record, only then she
filed bank statement of her another bank account on record.
He has further argued that admittedly, respondent was
gainfully employed before marriage, during subsistence of
marriage and after separation i.e. 29.11.2020, however, Ld.
Trial Court has ignored the settled law that a wife who is
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 5/17 VINEET Digitally
by VINEET
KUMAR
signed
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:49:31 +0530
gainfully employed and is earning is not entitled to
maintenance from her husband. He has further argued that
Ld. MM considered the entire credit entries in the account of
appellant as his income/profit, whereas the professional
income of C.S. is considered as 50% of the total gross
receipts in case the total gross receipts are not more than 50
lacs as per S. 44ADA, Income Tax Act 1961. He has further
argued that respondent is an independent educated women
and has no dependent or child to take care of nor she is
suffering from any sort of disability as mentioned in her
income affidavit nor she is living on any rental
accommodation. He has further argued that a lady, who is
earning Rs.20,000/- pm and whose expenses as per her own
admission are Rs.40,000/- pm, has been awarded Rs.35,000/-
as interim maintenance and no reasoning has been provided
for awarding the same.
7. Per contra, Counsel for Respondent/complainant has
argued that the present appeal is not maintainable as state
has not been arrayed as a necessary party to this appeal. It is
also argued that appellant has failed to point out any
infirmity in the impugned order and the Ld. Trial Court had
passed the impugned order after meticulously going through
the complaint and income affidavits of both the parties. It is
also argued that at the time of filing of the case, respondent
was working as a home tutor and she was earning about
Rs.20,000/- p.m, but after 2-3 months, she left the tuition as
she was suffering from mental trauma from physical as well
as mental harassment by the appellant and his family
members. It is also argued that appellant is a practicing
company secretary and earning Rs.2 lacs p.m. and apart from
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR +0530Date: 2024.12.24 16:49:39
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 6/17
that, he along with his father is operating the business of
Handicrafts and home Decor made up of Brass Metal at
1180, Chah Rahat, Delhi (near Jama Masjid) in the name of
Tripti Arts. It is further argued that this appeal is just an
abuse of legal process and has only been filed in order to
defeat the well-reasoned maintenance order passed by the
trial court, due to which, same is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed on behalf of
both sides on the pending appeal and perused the material
available on record.
9. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that as per settled
law, respondent/complainant 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, appellant has himself
admitted the factum of his marriage with
respondent/complainant. Thus, domestic relationship is well
established. Further, there are specific allegations of
physical, emotional and mental torture upon the
respondent/complainant and also DIR is present on record.
Therefore, prima facie, commission of domestic violence
seems to be made out.
10. Further, it is settled law that interim relief under
Section 23 DV Act demand a cautionary exercise, ensuring
establishment of an equipoise between the conflicting
interests of the spouses. In fact, it is settled law that the grant
of maintenance must ensure that the amount so awarded to a
spouse is not so excessive, so that it becomes punitive and
oppressive for the respondent, nor should such an amount be
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 7/17 VINEET Digitally signed
by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:49:48 +0530
so paltry, so as to push a spouse to a state of penury. Here, it
is further apposite to note that the determination of the
quantum of interim maintenance, pending final adjudication
of the conflicting interests, entails formation of only a prima
facie view of the matter, and serious disputed questions of
facts, demanding proof by adducing evidence, cannot be
considered at such a stage. Further, for the purpose of
forming a prima facie opinion, court can take the averments
made by the parties along with their respective affidavits
into consideration.
11. For ascertaining the maintenance, the following test
have 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…” VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMARKUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:49:55 +0530CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 8/17
12. It is worthwhile 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.
13. Ld. Trial Court, by virtue of the impugned order, had
directed the appellant to make payment of interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. as well as additional
payment of Rs.15,000/- towards rent for the respondent to be
paid directly in the bank A/c of respondent/complainant
from the date of filing of said petition i.e. 03.03.2021 till
disposal of the said complaint or till such time,
respondent/complainant is entitled to receive the same,
whichever is earlier.
14. Now adverting to the case in hand, at the outset, it is
worthwhile to mention that in India, parties do not truthfully
reveal their income and for self-employed persons truthful
income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm while tax
compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in
determining interim maintenance, there cannot be
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 16:50:03
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 9/17
+0530
mathematical exactitude and some amount of guess work has
to be done by the court in order to somewhat ascertain the
income of the litigating parties. It is a normal practice
adopted by the parties engrossed in matrimonial litigations to
understate their respective incomes.
15. It has been contended primarily on behalf of appellant
that Ld. Trial Court has calculated the income of the
appellant on the basis of few credit entries in the form of
cash deposits in his bank account, whereas the credit entries
reflecting in the bank account of the respondent/wife were
not looked into by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the
impugned order to calculate her actual income. It has been
further contended on behalf of appellant that respondent had
filed false affidavit before Ld. Trial Court in order to conceal
her actual income and upon raising a specific enquiry by Ld.
Trial Court from respondent as to why her salary from
school is not reflecting in her bank account statement filed
on record, only then she filed bank statement of another
bank account on record. It has been further contended on
behalf of appellant that respondent is not entitled to
maintenance from appellant in the light of settled law, as per
which, a wife who is gainfully employed and is earning is
not entitled to maintenance from her husband. It has been
further contended on behalf of appellant that Ld. Trial Court
had not given any reasoning to the effect as to how a lady
having monthly income of Rs.20,000/- can spend
Rs.40,000/- per month. However, it is worth mentioning that
the said contentions are without any basis as first of all, the
relevant credit entry is of the period before marriage and
moreover the same could have been received by her from her
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 16:50:11
+0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 10/17
parents/relatives. However, in this regard, this Court
outrightly reiterates that the said contentions cannot be
deeply delved into at this stage as the same can only be
thoroughly evaluated after the parties have adduced their
respective evidence(s) during the trial. As far as the
contention that respondent has furnished a false affidavit and
only disclosed her salary, it may well be stated that this court
doesn’t need to dwell on this aspect while adjudicating the
present appeal, as an application u/s 340 CrPC in this regard
is already pending before the Ld. Trial Court. Further, as far
as the contention that a wife who is gainfully employed and
is earning is not entitled to maintenance from her husband, it
can be said that it is not a thumb rule and whether interim
maintenance can be granted or not in the given situation,
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Also,
as far as the contention that Trial Court did not give any
reasoning as to how a lady having monthly income of
Rs.20,000/- can spend Rs.40,000/- per month, it is reiterated
that serious disputed questions of facts, raised at the stage of
determination of claim for interim maintenance, cannot be
evaluated unless evidence in this regard is led, therefore no
fault in this regard can be said to be found in the impugned
order.
16. As far as the legality of awarding the respondent an
interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month as well as
additional payment of Rs.15,000/- towards rent in the
impugned order is concerned, it is worthwhile to mention
that while fixing an interim maintenance, court has to take
only a prima facie view of the matter and need not critically
examine the respective claims of parties regarding their
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 16:50:18
+0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 11/17
incomes or assets, as for deciding the same, evidence would
be required. However, at the same time, an aggrieved person
cannot be rendered to lead a life of destitute till completion
of trial. The meaning of the word ‘maintenance’ includes all
such means of living as would enable one to live in the
degree of comfort to suit the situation of life. It is said to
include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing,
health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expenses or
other proper cognate purposes.
17. The abovesaid parameters are guiding factors to
determine maintenance for the wife or dependent children.
Ld. Trial court has awarded an interim maintenance amount
as stated above while passing the impugned order. Ld.
Counsel for the appellant has taken a plea that Appellant was
only earning an income of Rs 28,000/-, while the respondent
was earning much more than him, therefore Ld. Trial Court
could not have granted interim maintenance. This court has
perused the Income Affidavits filed by the parties before the
Ld. Trial Court and the same indicates that the appellant has
himself mentioned his income as Rs.28,000/-, whereas he
has mentioned the income of respondent as Rs. 50,000 /-
being a teacher in a private school plus Rs. 25,000/- from
private tuitions. Before appreciating the said depositions in
the affidavit, at the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to
mention that during the course of matrimonial litigations,
there is a tendency amongst parties not to approach the court
with their truthful incomes. It is a matter of common
knowledge that no reasonable parents would ever accord
permission for an arrange marriage, knowing fully well that
the guy is earning much less than their daughter. Applying
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 16:50:27
+0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 12/17
this to the facts of the present case, it is incomprehensible to
say the least that parents of respondent/complainant would
have accepted the marriage proposal even after knowing the
fact that Appellant was only earning a meagre income of Rs.
28,000/-, while their daughter, as per the version of
Appellant, was earning much more. In fact, parties normally
conduct a background check of the opposite side before
answering in affirmative for a marriage proposal and in the
case in hand too, same would have been done by the family
of respondent/complainant. Thus, it is least likely that
Appellant would have disclosed his income to the other side
as Rs.28,000/- at the time of marriage. Ld. Trial Court has
also observed in the impugned order that Appellant seems to
have concealed his real income. It has been contended by the
Appellant that he has placed on record the relevant IT
returns, but it is worth mentioning that ITRs can never be the
estimate of actual earning of a party. Further, at the time of
furnishing affidavit of assets and liabilities dated 21.12.21,
Appellant has solemnly affirmed that he has an income of
Rs. 28,000/- p.m., which is stated to be paid to him by his
employer Lion Idemitsu Composites India Pvt. Ltd, whereas,
perusal of the bank statement of Appellant’s Bank for the
same period clearly indicates that he has been drawing an
amount of Rs. 34,776/- then, which clearly suggests of
concealment on the part of Appellant. Further, there is
contradiction in the versions inter se put forth by the
Appellant as on one hand it has been stated by him that he
has been employed by the aforesaid company, while
ironically in Column F of the aforesaid affidavit, it has been
mentioned that he is an ‘Independent Practicing Company
Secretary. Also, he has not disclosed his income from
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 13/17
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:50:35 +0530
advocacy as it has been admitted that he is a law graduate.
Further, Statement of Bank Account with Kotak Mahindra
Bank for the period 03.04.20 to 31.03.21 indicates deposits
of Rs. 8,19,895/- and withdrawal of Rs. 7,96,077/-.
Similarly, deposits and withdrawal during 02.04.19 to
31.03.2020 were 8,91,112 and Rs. 8,91,511 respectively.
The bank receipts/withdrawal of appellant during the three
financial years were between 5 to 8 Lacs and if that is the
case, then the average earning of respondent may well be
ascertained as Rs. 60,000- 70,000/-, while he has only
mentioned his income in the affidavit as Rs. 28,000/-.
Further, on one hand he has stated that his mother and father
are his dependents, while on the other hand, it has been
stated by him in the affidavit that his father has shops of
brass & handicrafts whose income belongs to his father. He
has further stated therein that due to advent of Covid-19
shops were closed, but does not mention whether the said
shops have been permanently closed down or not or have
they been rented out to someone. Also, it seems that in fact
Appellant is the one who ran the said shop and payment of
random customers seem to be deposited in his account,
which is well indicated upon perusal of his Bank statement
of Kotak Bank, wherein multiple entries indicating UPI
payment pertaining to Brass products such as Pot,
Shivalinga, Shiva Gaura, Shankh, Urli, planter etc. have
been mentioned. Further, it has also been prima facie shown
to this court that the home decor shop namely Tripti Arts
near Jama Maszid is still operational and being run by the
appellant, as the print out of facebook page of the said shop
clearly indicates that the said shop is not closed and
Appellant’s name is mentioned as the owner therein. In
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 14/17
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:50:43 +0530
addition to this, there were several Cash deposits as well as
other transactions in the said bank account of Appellant in
the relevant period, which remains unexplained. Further,
while the Appellant resides on one floor of the house
property at Surajmal Vihar, the other one is stated to have
been rented out and the rent of the same is said to be
pocketed by the Appellant and this court can’t lose sight of
the fact that the aforesaid place is one of the most posh
colony of East Delhi and it is not hard to imagine the kind of
rent the said property must be fetching. Further, it has also
been stated by the respondent that appellant is also having
two shops at Chaawri Bazaar, although there is nothing on
record in support of said submission, but it is worth
mentioning that the same has not been refuted by the
appellant anywhere.
18. On the other hand, respondent has stated in her
affidavit that she is earning about Rs.20,000/-, but her
expenses are around Rs.40,000/-. It has been contended by
her that her family has been bearing the said expenses.
Although, Ld. Trial Court has supposedly taken her annual
income as Rs. 4,50,000/- as per Income tax return for the AY
2020-21, but this court can’t ignore the fact that the said
return was filed on 15.09.20 i.e. before the date of separation
and it is the case of respondent that due to depression, she
left her job, after she was subjected to acts of cruelty. It has
been contended that after separation, she is earning only Rs.
20,000/-. Importantly, nothing has been placed on record by
the appellant to disprove the said claim and in case there is
anything to the contrary, then evidence in this regard can be
led by the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. Also, it is
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:50:49 +0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 15/17
settled law that husband is under legal and moral obligation
to maintain his wife and she is entitled to adequate, fair and
reasonable monetary relief, which is consistent with the
standard of living to which she is accustomed.
19. In the present matter, while no prima facie income of
the husband has been ascertained by the Ld. Trial Court
while passing the impugned order for the purpose of grant of
interim maintenance, but in the light of aforesaid discussion,
it may well be inferred that his income was much more than
what has been stated by him in the affidavit and the Ld. Trial
Court has not committed any error in observing that
Appellant has concealed his income. Thus, in view of above
discussion, suffice it to state that Ld. Trial Court has
correctly assessed all the factors and taken a prima facie
view while ascertaining the interim maintenance of Rs.
20,000/-p.m. in favour of respondent/wife. Further, Ld. Trial
Court had also granted Rs. 15,000/- p.m. towards rent in
favour of respondent. As per Section 19(1)(f) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a
magistrate can order a respondent to provide an alternative
accommodation for a victim of domestic violence. Thus, it is
not out of place for trial court to have ordered certain amount
in favour of complainant for the purpose of rent, but the
alternate accommodation which is to be provided should be
of same level as enjoyed by her in the shared household or
rent in lieu of the same can also be directed to be paid.
Admittedly, respondent was residing in the shared household
which was situated at Surajmal Vihar, which is one of the
most posh colonies of East Delhi. Thus, it is not too far-
fetched to say that to secure an accommodation at the said
VINEET Digitally signed by
VINEET KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24
16:50:58 +0530
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 16/17
colony, rent relatively on higher side is required to be paid.
In these circumstances, Ld.Trial Court by directing a rent of
Rs. 15,000/- has not committed any error and the same cant
be said to be excessive by any stretch of imagination.
20. However, in the end, it is important to mention that
this matter otherwise is pending before the Trial court and in
case appellant, if aggrieved, may raise all his
contentions/pleas before the Trial Court during the course of
evidence/cross examination of respondent and can also lead
evidence contrary to the case of respondent/complainant
before the said court for the purpose of proving his version,
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.
21. Thus, in view of above discussion, this court does not
find any perversity, illegality or manifest error of law and
fact in the impugned order and the same does not warrant
any interference.
22. Accordingly, the criminal appeal preferred by the
appellant is dismissed, being without any merits. It is
however clarified that nothing expressed herein shall
tantamount to any expression of this court on 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 file be consigned to record room.
VINEET Digitally signed by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2024.12.24 16:51:07
+0530
Announced in the open court (Vineet Kumar)
on 24.12.2024 ASJ-02/E-COURT
Shahdara/KKD Courts.
CA No. 80/2023 Yash Malhotra Vs. Sonal Dhingra Page No. 17/17
[ad_1]
Source link