Delhi District Court
Deepa vs Sunil Kashyap on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal appeal No. 133/2025
PS- Jaitpur
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Smt. Deepa
W/o Sh. Sunil Kashyap
D/o Sh. Ram Lakhan
R/o S-30, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur,
New Delhi - 110044.
.... appellant
Versus
1. Sunil Kashyap
S/o Sh. Sone Lal Kashyap
2. Sh. Sone Lal Kashyap
S/o Not Known
3. Smt. Rama Devi
W/o Sh. Sone Lal Kashyap
4. Sushma
D/o Sh. Sone Lal Kashyap
5. Shiv Parvati
D/o Sh. Sone Lal Kashyap
R/o B-99, Paryawaran Complex
IGNOU Road, Saidulajab,
New Delhi.
.... Respondents
CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 1 of 19
Date of Institution : 12.02.2025
Date of Arguments : 16.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 24.03.2026
Decision : Appeal Dismissed.
Impugned Order Stands Upheld.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a Criminal Appeal u/sec 29 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) 438/440 of BNSS filed by the appellant/wife namely Deepa against the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT Case No. 1663/2021 titled as "Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap & Ors.", vide which the application under Section 23 PWDV Act was dismissed.
2. Appellant/ wife herein was the complainant and respondent/ husband herein was the accused before Ld. Trial Court. In order to avoid any confusion, both the parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with which they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present appeal as mentioned in appeal petition are as follows :-
"That the appellant was got married with Respondent No./ Sh. Sunil Kashyap on 14.05.2021 as per Hindu Rights and Customs. That the said marriage was solemnized with great pomp and show as per the demands of the Respondents and the parents of the CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 2 of 19 appellant spent almost 30 lakh rupees in the marriage including all gifts, dowry articles and ornaments. That after marriage, the appellant reached at her matrimonial house where her in-laws specifically Respondent No.2 taunting upon the appellant that she has bring less dowry and took all the gold and silver ornaments of the appellant from her. That after few days of the marriage of the appellant, she was asked to do all household works of the entire family beyond her capacity and same was done by the appellant as per the orders of the Respondents. That the appellant spent two months in her matrimonial home and during her stay in matrimonial home, Respondent No.1 and other Respondents assaulted her several time physically as well as mentally for their illegal dowry demands. That it is pertinent to mention here that Respondent No.1 is the only son of Respondent No.2 and 3 and Respondent No.4 and 5 are daughters of Respondent No.2 and 3 who were unmarried at that time and all intentionally and deliberately harassed the appellant on petty issues. She was not provided separate room for her living and further Respondent No.3 to 5 told the appellant they have purchased a plot 50 sq. yds. in a total consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and they had need money to construct the said plot and asked the appellant to brought Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents and when the appellant objected the same then she was mercilessly beaten and threatened that if her parents will not fulfill their demands, they will not accompany her. That the appellant suffered all the atrocities of the Respondent thinking that after passing of time all will be normal but all the Respondents asked to give them Rs.5 lakh. That on 19.07.2021 the family members of the appellant alongwith some other respectable members of the society reached at the matrimonial home of the appellant and tried to solve the matter but Respondent No.1 and other Respondents insulted all CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 3 of 19 of them in presence of their neighbours and thrown out the appellant from matrimonial home saying that "she cannot stay there till the parents of the appellant will not fulfill their demand of Rs. 5.00,000/-", and since then the appellant is residing with her parents at her parental house. That the appellant was never given any money for household goods and for other expenses by the Respondents. That feeling aggrieved from the Respondents, the appellant filed a complaint in CAW Cell, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi in which FIR No.312/2022 was got registered in PS Badarpur, New Delhi and is pending investigation. That at the same time, the appellant file the separate case under Section 12 DV Act alongwith a separate application under Section 23 DV Act. That during the proceedings, the Hon'ble La. JMFC Court ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- per month till final disposal of the application of the appellant under Section 23 DV Act. That the application of the appellant under Section 23 DV Act has been dismissed on 14.11.2024 and after passing the order dated 14.11.2024, the Respondent No.1 has stopped paying ad-interim maintenance. That feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred to file the present appeal petition."
4. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties on the interim application moved by complainant has passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 and thereafter, matter was fixed for Complainant Evidence.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, appellant/wife has challenged the said order by way of present appeal on the following grounds :-
CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 4 of 19 A. That the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly concluded that when parties entered into wedlock their intent is to share responsibility. The work of married women cannot be equated to a maid servant and shall be count as her love and affection for the family. The same cannot mean to be domestic violence under DV Act, although the Ld. JMFC Court that in ordinary course of nature, no women would like to ruin her own matrimonial life without any cause which shows that the appellant has suffered pain, agony and harassment from the Respondents and she was compelled and thrown out from her matrimonial home and since then she is residing with her parents which shows that the appellant was harassed for less dowry and being a legally wedded wife, she is entitle for maintenance and separate residence and same was overlooked by Ld. JMFC Court.
B. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the appellant was thrown out on 19.07.2021 from her matrimonial home for which 100 no call was made but she was not allowed by the Respondents to enter into their house and she came back with her parents at her parental house.
C. That the Ld. Trail Court has failed to appreciate that the fact that the appellant is legally wedded wife admittedly and if she is unable to maintain herself then she is entitle for maintenance under DV Act.
D. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that if the husband left the wife at her parental home without any valid reason, fall under domestic cruelty act.
E. That the Id. Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per Section 12(1) of DV Act provides that an aggrieved person may present application to the magistrate seeking one or more relief under this Act and under Section 20(1) of DV Act that the magistrate while dealing with an application under Section 1 of Section 12 is empowered to direct the Respondents to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence.
This may include but is not limited to an order of maintenance of the aggrieved person as well as her children.
CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 5 of 19 F. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the guideline laid down by our Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Ajay Kumar vs. Lata @ Sharuti & Ors., in which the Hon ble Apex Court clearly directed to pay the arrears to the aggrieved person.
G. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that when the Respondent admitted the marriage as per the Hindu Rights and Customs then the appellant being a legally wedded wife is entitled for maintenance from Respondent No.l.
H. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per PWDV Act 2005, if the husband leaves his wife without any reason with her matrimonial home, this act would generally would be considered "domestic violence"
under PWDV Act.
I. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the catena of judgments of our Hon ble Delhi High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court, in which the Hon'ble Apex Courts had passed detail orders and guidelines on maintenance to wife as under Section DV Act.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
6. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, Ld. Counsel for appellant/wife has argued that the Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that no prima facie case of domestic violence is made out. Under Section 23 of the PWDV Act, the requirement is a prima facie case, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant's complaint contains specific allegations-- her eviction on 19.07.2021, a dowry demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and confiscation of her jewellery. These are clear and sufficient to establish a prima facie case of emotional, verbal, and economic abuse, which the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate. The finding that the allegations are "vague and general" is contrary to the CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 6 of 19 record. It is to be noted that in CRL.REV.P. 154/2024 & CRL.M.A. 3272/2024, the Hon' ble Delhi High Court observed that:
"19. Nevertheless, whether or not the allegations levelled by the respondent are true, is not to be considered at this stage, as proving the veracity of these allegations is a matter of trial. At this stage, since the petitioners seek deletion of their names as respondents in the complaint under Section 12 of PWD Act, it is only to be seen whether there are prima facie allegations of domestic violence against them."
7. It is further argued that the wife stayed at the matrimonial home for only 6 days, but the hon'ble court observing that a dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs was asked and further she was evicted from the rented accommodation after only 6 days just like in the present case it was done after 2 months and on the basis of this, the Hon'ble court held the following in para 16 of the judgment:
"16. Therefore, it is evident from the contents of the complaint that respondent has made specific allegations pertaining to emotional/mental and physical abuse as well as harassment for the purpose of demanding dowry, against the petitioners herein."
CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 7 of 19
8. It has further been argued that the Ld. Trial Court adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of "domestic violence," equating it with physical violence and emphasizing the absence of an MLC report. Section 3 of the PWDV Act defines "domestic violence" to include economic, verbal, and emotional abuse. Acts such as dowry demands, deprivation of jewellery, and eviction from the shared household are clear instances of economic and emotional abuse under the Act. In Neelam Walia vs Sanjay Walia on 7 January, 2025, CRL.M.C. 4406/2019, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed:
"15. The provision relating to grant of interim maintenance is provided under of the DV Act which delineates the power of the Magistrate to pass interim orders. The only requirement for grant of interim maintenance as materialised under of the DV Act is that the application by the wife has to prima facie disclose that she has suffered domestic violence at the hands of her spouse/ partner. While the veracity of the case of the wife would be tested during the course of trial, interim relief can be granted merely upon the satisfaction that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence."
9. It has further been argued that the Ld. Trial Court misapplied judicial precedent and ignored the legislative intent of the PWDV Act. CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 8 of 19 Its reliance on MAT. APP. (FC) 63/2021 is misplaced. Observations about a wife's household contribution cannot negate specific allegations of dowry demands and cruelty. Section 23 of the PWDV Act aims to provide immediate relief to prevent destitution during the main petition. The Ld. Trial Court's hyper-technical approach defeats this objective. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that depriving the appellant of the "shared household" is a grave act of domestic violence. As the legally wedded wife, she has an indefeasible right to reside there. Her forcible ouster on 19.07.2021 is a continuing act of domestic violence. Denial of maintenance to a woman unlawfully dispossessed is unjust. Granting monetary relief is necessary to protect her right to residence and sustenance. It is further argued that the absence of a prior police complaint or MLC is not fatal at the interim stage. The Ld. Trial Court erred in emphasizing this. Women often endure abuse hoping for reconciliation, delaying complaints. The PWDV Act is a civil remedy, and the standard is preponderance of probabilities, which is met by the Appellant's detailed averments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
10. On other hand, Ld. LADC Sh. Sunder Lal on behalf of respondent Sunil Kashyap has argued that the present appeal petition is liable to be dismissed as appellant has not come before court with clean hands. It is argued that appellant and respondent (husband) got married on 30.05.2021 and lived with the respondent only for a period of 2 months till 14.07.2021. It has been argued that the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2021 summoned all the respondents and on CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 9 of 19 06.06.2020 directed both the parties to file their income affidavits. Further, vide order dated 18.12.2023 granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the appellant till the application for seeking interim maintenance was disposed off. Further, vide inpugned order dated 14.11.2024, the Ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the application moved on behalf of appellant U/s 23 D. V. Act. It has been argued that the prima facie contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the ad- interim maintenance is still required to be paid by the respondent is baseless as the ad-interim maintenance continued only till the application for seeking maintenance U/s 23 D. V. Act was decided and since the same was dismissed, the respondent is not liable to pay any ad-interim maintenance. It has been argued that the appellant stayed only for a period of 2 months with respondent and has levelled false allegations against respondent which are not substantiated by any documents and therefore, prima facie she was not entitled for claiming any maintenance and therefore, the same has been rightly denied to the appellant by the Trial Court. Ld. LAC for respondent has also stated that the appellant is BA pass is currently residing with her parents in rented accommodation and her claimed her expenses to be Rs. 50,000/- p.m. but has failed to place on record any document to substantiate the claim. Further, the appellant is educated and is capable of earning and is around 33 years of age and is not suffering from any ailment and therefore, cannot be stated to be incapable for taking care of herself. It has been argued that the appellant during her stay in the matrimonial house was never ill treated and in fact was taken for treatment which is substantiated by her own documents pertaining to her visit to the CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 10 of 19 hospitals by the respondent. It has been argued that the appeal petition is liable to be dismissed. During the arguments Ld. LAC for respondent has also placed on record his fresh income affidavit along-with supporting documents.
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by respective counsels of the parties and have carefully perused record including Trial Court Record.
12. Section 20 of the DV Act stipulates that a Magistrate hearing an application under Section 12 of the DV Act may direct Respondent to pay certain monetary relief to the aggrieved person. It further delineates the contours of monetary relief that is to be paid to aggrieved person, including the criteria governing it as well as the manner in which the payment is to be made. For the ease of comprehension, Section 20 of the DV Act has been reproduced as under :-
"20. Monetary reliefs (1)While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the 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 the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,
(a)the loss of earnings;
(b)the medical expenses;
(c)the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 11 of 19
(d)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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.
(2)The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed."
13. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or her relatives for demand of dowry, it is an offence u/sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety. It was therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevalent the occurrence of the domestic violence in the society. Keeping these objects and reasons in mind to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman guaranteed under Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto, the Bill was presented and the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was passed by the Parliament. Thus, it cannot be lost sight of, that the Act has been passed keeping in view the provision under the Constitution and to provide a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from domestic violence in the society. We may also see that CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 12 of 19 where an alternative constructions are possible, the court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than the one which would put hindrances in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility.
14. The Act inter-alia provides for more effective protection or the right of woman guaranteed under the constitution who are victims of the domestic violence of any kind occurring within the shared household. According to the Act, any harm, injury to health, safety, life, limb or well being or any other act or threatening or coercion etc. by any adult member of the family, constitutes domestic violence. Further, the act also contemplates that any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship, if she is subjected to any domestic violence can file a complaint u/sec. 12 of the PWDV Act. This Act also covers those woman who are or have been in relationship with the abuser where both parties have live together in a shared household and a relative by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, the relationship with the family members living together as a joint family are also included. Even those women are sisters, widows, mothers or single woman or living with the abuse, are entitled to legal protection.
CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 13 of 19
15. Before considering respective contentions of parties, I must mention here that while fixing an interim maintenance, court has to take a prima facie view of the matter and need not to critically examine the respective claims of the parties regarding their respective incomes and assets because for deciding the same, the evidence would be required. But, at the same time, an aggrieved person cannot be rendered to lead a life of a destitute till completion of trial. It is also pertinent to note here 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/ her situation of life. It is said to have include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, traveling expenses or other proper cognate purposes.
16. For computing 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 parties, their respective needs, the capacity of 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 wife or children 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 CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 14 of 19 she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
17. Further, 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 :-
Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance :-
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 straitjacket 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; 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 nonworking wife.
18. Besides that, the court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or her child or his support, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and dependent family members including his own child, whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 15 of 19 consideration. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiraling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any such source of income through which, he could maintain her wife, ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife or his child if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
19. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr (Supra) has held as under :-
(c) Where wife is earning some income. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.
20. Further, in order to determine the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B - III of the judgment Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr. (supra). 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 straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
21. Under Section 12 of DV Act, an aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate seeking one or more of the reliefs under the DV Act. Under section 20 DV Act, the magistrate has powers to direct husband CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 16 of 19 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 the domestic violence and such relief may inter alia include the maintenance for aggrieved person as well as her children.
FINDINGS
22. At the outset, I may observe that the parties are at idem regarding factum of marriage between them. The complainant has alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence at the hands of appellant/ husband. However, same has been denied by the respondent by way of present appeal.
23. Firstly, I shall deal with pleas as taken by appellant/wife while assailing the impugned order by which the maintenance has been denied to the appellant. The main ground on which appellant is seeking for setting aside of impugned order is that the respondent being the husband is well educated and employed and is liable to maintain the complainant, who is living currently at her parental home. It is further argued that the respondent/ husband has no liabilities and is liable to maintain the complainant who does not have any source of income.
24. It has come on record that complainant lived in the matrimonial home only for a period of 2 months and thereafter left the matrimonial house. Further, that she is a graduate and is not suffering from any ailment and is capable of earning. Also, the complainant has levelled CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 17 of 19 allegations pertaining to being assaulted in the matrimonial home but the aforesaid allegations are not supported by any documents. The complainant has failed to show any reason for not taking up any employment despite being equally educated to the respondent.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, has held :-
"12. Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves, shall be obligated to do so. A moral duty and a statutory obligation is cast upon the husband to maintain his wife, minor children, parents who otherwise are not capable of maintaining themselves.
26. At the outset, it is settled law that interim maintenance is granted to prevent vagrancy and destitution of an aggrieved woman during pendency of proceedings. However, in the present matter the complainant has failed to show any difficulty in earning for herself who is well educated.
27. The appellant/ wife has not placed on record any documents pertaining to her expenses claimed of Rs. 50,000/- and the same are mentioned for extorting money from the respondent. The appellant/wife is an able-bodied person. Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously after considering the status of parties and prima facie material available on record. This appellate court does not find any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the impugned order CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 18 of 19 warranting interference.
28. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the grounds taken by the appellant/wife by way of present appeal, is devoid of merit and therefore, is discarded accordingly.
29. Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order by considering carefully the material placed on record by both the parties. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
30. In view of the aforesaid appreciation of facts and circumstances and relevant case laws, the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court needs no interference. Same stands upheld. Present Appeal, therefore stands dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced In The Sheetal by Sheetal
chaudhary
Open Court Today chaudhary Date: 2026.03.24
13:31:28 +0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
24.03.2026 (vk)
CA No. 133/2025 Deepa vs. Sunil Kashyap Page no. 19 of 19