Delhi District Court
Mrs. Savita vs Mr. Siraspal Singh on 2 February, 2017
Criminal Appeal No.1201/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. : 1201/2016
Under Section : 12 of D.V. Act
Police Station : GTB Enclave
CC No. : V-235/2015
Unique I.D. No. : 44818/16
In the matter of :-
Mrs. SAVITA
W/o Sh. Siraspal Singh
R/o 125-B, F.F.,
Pocket-F, GTB Enclave,
Opposite GTB Hospital,
Delhi 110093
..............Appellant
VERSUS
Mr. SIRASPAL SINGH
S/o Sh. Kali Ram
Working as S.D.E.
(Staff no. JE-5019),
Mahanagar Telephone Nagar Ltd.
G.M. Unit (Central)
Office at C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi
..............Respondent
Date of Institution : 14.09.2016
Date of receiving the case in this court : 15.09.2016
Date of reserving order : 23.01.2017
Date of pronouncement : 02.02.2017
Decision : Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 24.06.2016, passed by trial court in a case titled as Smt. Savita vs. Siraspal Singh, Page 1 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1201/2016 bearing CC No. V-235/15, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act. Vide impugned order, the trial court directed respondent no. 1 (respondent herein) to pay Rs.12,000/- per month, to the petitioner (appellant herein) for her maintenance from date of order till disposal of main application.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that petitioner is wife of respondent, who filed an application u/s 12 of the Act, thereby making several allegations of domestic violence against him. In her application, she claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. She also filed an application for interim maintenance, thereby claiming same amount as interim maintenance. Vide impugned order, trial court granted interim maintenance to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.12,000/- per month, from the date of order till disposal of main application.
3. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds :-
● That the maintenance was not granted from the date of filing of application, without giving any specific reason for the same. ● That ld. MM while passing the impugned judgment, did not take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. ● That ld. MM while passing the impugned order, did not appreciate the fact that the respondent had concealed his true income from the court. ● That the trial court had not taken into account that the respondent had mentioned four bank accounts in his affidavit of income and assets filed in accordance with the judgment of Kusum Lata Sharma and has not filed deliberately statement of other bank account, and had only filed statement of Indian Overseas Bank and has not even filed the salary account statement and thus the respondent had concealed the Page 2 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1201/2016 material information about his true income from the trial court. FINDINGS :-
4. Ld. counsel for petitioner submitted that he confined his grievance that interim maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing of application u/s 12 of the Act. However, the trial court passed order to pay such maintenance from the date of order. Ld. counsel submitted that such order has prejudiced the petitioner as she had been entitled to get maintenance at least from the date of application. Ld. counsel referred to case laws cited as Damanreet Kaur vs. Indermeet Juneja & Anr., 2013(1)JCC 306, High Court of Delhi and Seema Seth vs. Nishith Seth, 2016(1)JCC 75, High Court of Delhi, wherein maintenance was granted from the date of application.
5. Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in such directions of the trial court and the case laws referred by ld. counsel for petitioner, do not say that it is mandatory to grant maintenance from the date of application.
6. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the interim maintenance was not granted from the date of application. Maintenance is granted to the applicant as subsistence allowance, so that the applicant is able to lead same standard of life as enjoyed by the payer/non-applicant. Therefore, until and unless there are some specific reasons, maintenance should be passed from the date of such application being filed before the court.
7. The impugned order does not refer to any specific reason due to which the maintenance was not granted from the date of application. If the trial court found petitioner to be entitled for interim maintenance, then it goes without saying that petitioner required such maintenance at least from the date of moving her application before the court. Therefore, I do find that Page 3 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1201/2016 the impugned order requires to be modified. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and it is directed that petitioner shall be paid interim maintenance from the date of filing of application. Respondent herein shall make payment of arrears of maintenance within a period of three months to the petitioner.
8. Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court with TCR.
File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 02.02.2017 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) (This order contains 4 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 4 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi