Delhi District Court
Vineet Gandhi vs Shikha Gandhi on 17 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 44/2024
PS- Lajpat Nagar
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Vineet Gandhi
S/o Sh. Mohan Kumar Gandhi
R/o H. No. 16, Lajpat Nagar-III
New Delhi- 110019.
.... Appellant
Versus
Shikha Gandhi
W/o Sh. Praveen Gandhi
D/o Late Sh. Vinod Seth
R/o H. No. 193, Third Floor
Near Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Park
Vinobha Puri, New Delhi- 110024.
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 29.01.2024
Date of Arguments : 24.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 17.07.2025
Decision : Appeal Dismissed.
Impugned Order Stands Upheld.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
1. This is a Criminal Appeal u/sec 29 of the Protection Protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) filed by the appellant/ husband namely Vineet Gandhi against the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT Case No. 1449/2022 titled as "Shikha Gandhi Vs .Vineet Gandhi" whereby the appellant/ husband was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for the maintenance of the minor child and further directed him to continue bear the school expenses including books, uniform, tuition fees, admission fees and insurance etc. on or before 5th day of each English Calender month from the date of filing of the application till its disposal.
2. Appellant/ husband herein was the respondent before Ld. Trial Court and respondent/ wife herein was the complainant 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 are as follows :-
"That marriage of the complainant and respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2004 according to the Hindu rites and customs, at Delhi. Out of the said wedlock, one child was born out who were presently in the custody of complainant. It is further stated that soon after the marriage, behaviour of the respondent CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 2 of 25 no. 2/ father-in-law (Mohan Kumar Gandhi) has started behaviour in a dominant way. The complainant was tortured physically as well as mentally by the respondents. That even after 8-9 years of marriage, the terrible behaviour of the respondent did not change and her father-in-law started throwing things of the house, locking up the kitchen by putting lock at the doors, screaming and always threatening the complainant and her minor son to leave his house and was sexually assaulted by her father-in-law on many occasions. That respondent/ husband is well educated and is earning handsomely. That a police complaint was made by the complainant on 14.10.2021. That after marriage, complainant and her husband lived together for about 17 years. Since, the complainant was subjected to the physical, verbal and emotional abuse as well as the economic abuse committed by the respondents, hence, the present complaint case."
4. Thereafter, respondents were summoned and were directed to file their respective income affidavits supporting with the documents.
5. On 20.10.2023, statement of respondent with respect to his source of income recorded separately. On 21.11.2023, complainant was examined u/sec. 165 Indian Evidence Act separately by Ld. Trial Court.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 3 of 25
6. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties on the application for seeking interim maintenance moved by the complainant has passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 and appellant/ husband was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for the maintenance of the minor child and further directed him to continue bear the school expenses including books, uniform, tuition fees, admission fees and insurance etc. on or before 5th day of each English Calender month from the date of filing of the application till its disposal.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court, respondent/ husband has challenged the said order by way of present appeal on the following grounds :-
a) That monthly expenses of the minor son of respondent and the complainant have been wrongly calculated and exaggerated to extort more money from the respondent.
b) That Instead from the date of order, the respondent has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the expenses of the minor child from the date of application U/s.23(2) of the Act i.e., from 16.08.2022.
c) That vide order dated 22.11.2023 complete responsibility for all expenses of minor child has been imposed upon respondent/ husband including school fee, books, uniform, insurance expenses and an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards overall expenses of the minor son.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 4 of 25
d) That in the statement made by the complainant before the Mahila Court, she has stated that nearly an amount of Rs. 11000/- is spent on the extra-curricular activities of the minor son, the said statement is wrong and misleading as the bank statements shows that total expenses the minor son for extra-curricular activities of the minor son is around Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month only.
e) That Hon'ble court passed the order directing the appellant to pay the amount at the rate of 20,000/- per month from the date of application rather than the date of order. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh V. Neha "The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislation, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the court."
f) That in Bina Devi v. State of U.P. 2010 SCC OnLine All 236:
(2010) 69 ACC 19 the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of Section 125(2) CrPC held that when maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application, the court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not be recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) CrPC is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 5 of 25
g) That in conclusion of the case Rajnesh V. Neha the Hon'ble Supreme Court though observed that the date of payment for maintenance will be from date of application, but it is pertinent to mention the said conclusion is based on the reasoning that a person who is unable to maintain herself, applies for maintenance should not suffer from the delay caused in the disposal of application for maintenance, it is stated that the case at the hand is not the case wherein the applicant was not in state to maintain herself or was derived to destitution and vagrancy, rather the respondent has always been in position to maintain herself therefore, passing an order for maintenance from the date of apply is not be maintainable in this case and hence bad in law.
h) That above details clearly show that the respondent has always been in a position to spend a proportionate amount towards the well being of the minor child as a mother as her monthly income as per above calculation is Rs. 95,195/- per month.
8. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, Ld. Counsel for respondent/ husband has argued that Ld. Trial Court has erred in calculating the income while passing the impugned order. It has been argued that the claim of complainant to be incurring expenses of Rs.94,000/- per month is a vague claim and Ld. Trial Court has erred in this regard and the income affidavit is being intentionally done by the complainant to mislead the Court and to extort money from the respondent. It has been CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 6 of 25 argued that submission on behalf of complainant that she has been managing her expenses from the borrowings from family member and friend are vague in nature as no name of such family member or friend has been disclosed by the complaint. It has been argued that not only complainant is earning sufficiently to sustain herself as per the order sheet dated 22.11.2023 but also having sufficient cash to meet the expenses of Rs.33,000/- & Rs.39000/- per month. It has been argued that amount of Rs. 20,000/- as interim maintenance for the child as per order dated 22.11.2023 on the respondent is an arbitrary amount as such no documents were placed by the complainant so far before the Ld. JMFC/Trial Court justifying the additional expenditure of Rs. 28,000/- per month (other than school fees, uniform, medical insurance being paid by the appellant on the minor child. It has been argued that amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance for child per month along with arrears from date of filing application (i.e. 16/08/2022) is being used by Respondent to indulge in "Legal terrorism" and also do her own welfare in the name of child's welfare. It has been argued that respondent is conscious of the fact that maintaining the child is his responsibility as well is voluntarily incurring school and education expenses as well as the insurances expenses and the health insurance policy not only covers the child but the complainant as well. It has been argued that respondent/ husband continued to take care of all the requirements of his minor son and followed his moral duty towards his son in all respect and has insured not only the minor son but also the complainant vide a medical insurance policy covering both minor son and the complainant. It has been argued that entire liability of the CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 7 of 25 maintenance of the minor child has been saddled upon the respondent instead the complainant sharing the same, despite the fact that she is having sufficient income. It has been argued that as per the income affidavit filed by respondent Vineet Gandhi, he is graduate and unemployed and was previously helping in the family business of electronics which has shut down in July 2022. It has been argued that as of now, the complainant has total value of FDs and PPF of Rs. 28,40,000/- approximately upon which the total interest is Rs.1,94,492/- approximately per annum and the monthly interest of the said interest is Rs. 16,208/-per month. He has also relied upon the judgment of The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Rajnesh vs Neha dated 04.11.2020 wherein it has has held that "Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the Parties." It has been prayed that the impugned order being illegal, arbitrary, improper, incorrect deserves to be set aside or in the alternate be modified accordingly.
9. On other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/ wife has argued that the present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed. It has been argued that respondent has not come with clean hands and wants to take the benefit of his own wrongs which cannot be allowed. It has been argued that though Ld. Trial Court had wrongly denied the interim maintenance to the wife/ complainant holding that she is earning sufficiently to sustain herself at the interim stage, then also the respondent did not challenge the said order as the respondent did not CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 8 of 25 want to burden herself with multiple litigations as she had suffered a lot of abuse and violence for almost 17 years at the hands of the respondent/ husband and his father in her matrimonial home. It has been argued that there is a huge difference of income between the respondent/ husband and the complainant whereas, it is settled law that where the wife is earning equally, interim maintenance cannot be granted to the wife, which is completely contrary to the present case, herein the appellant and the respondent are not earning equally, therefore the expenses of the minor child cannot be shared equally or proportionately as alleged by the appellant. It has been argued that wife in the present case has been constrained to stay in a tenanted premises and bear all the expenses like food, clothing, shelter, extracurricular activities of the child alongwith medical and other uncertainties of life. It has been argued that the parameter remains whether her source of income is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself along with minor child. It has been argued that respondent/ husband had not been truthful in his disclosure and had concealed his income and expenditure to avoid paying any maintenance to his wife and minor child. It has been argued that Ld. Trial Court had rightly observed the expenses of the minor child and the respondent had shown in her bank statements the basic expenses and fees she is paying for the child. It has been argued that complainant had no permanent source of income and it is very difficult for her to survive and maintain herself and the minor child. It has further been argued that complainant was harassed and tortured by respondent/ husband and was harassed and molested also by her father- in-law. It has been argued that complainant has minor child who needs CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 9 of 25 constant care and attention but on the other hand, respondent/ husband is living a lavish life and least bothered about the complainant and her child. It has been argued that the grounds of appeal are vague and present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by respective counsels of the parties and have carefully perused record including Trial Court Record.
11. Before appreciating the facts of this case, I find it relevant to mention here the case laws governing the case in hand.
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;
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 10 of 25
(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
(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. In the case titled as Bhagwan Dass Vs. Poonam & Ors., Crl. Rev. P. 357/2020 decided on 28.01.2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it has been held that :-
5. The petitioner admittedly has a bank account but he has neither disclosed the account number nor filed the copy of the bank statement. The respondents had placed on record the photographs downloaded from the Facebook page of the petitioner wherein, the petitioner has taken certain selfies and he is seen visiting various places in India as tourist. Even an Air Conditioner is seen at his premises and some of the photographs appeared to be of his workplace where he is sitting in an office chair with CCTV camera screen installed near him. In two photographs, the petitioner is seen with boxes of finished goods and in one photograph, he is seen standing near a new SUV and in some other photographs, he is seen travelling wearing decent attires. Thus, on the basis of the standard of living of the petitioner, the Court assessed the present income of the petitioner at ₹35,000/- per month.
6. In the decision reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10828 Vijay Kushwaha vs. Chanchal, this Court in an appeal where the appellant/husband failed to produce any documentary proof with regard to his employment status and also his actual income and by not disclosing his source of income, held that CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 11 of 25 the appellant/husband is trying to defeat the legitimate right of the respondent/wife to claim maintenance and also shirking his responsibilities. In such situation, the Court held that it was not to allow the relief of reduction in amount of maintenance to the appellant/husband when he himself has not come with clean hands and is trying to hide the true facts from the Court.
7. In the decision reported as (1997) 7 SCC 7 Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) vs. District Judge, Dehradun, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while awarding maintenance, the Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. It was further held that when diverse claims are made by the parties, one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.
14. In the case law titled as Mrs. Rupai Mayur Doshi Vs. Mr. Mayur Jaswantray Doshi, 2016 SCC Online Bom 14352 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it has been held that :-
"We have seen that there is a tendency on the part of husbands to show that either they have no income or they have lost their job immediately after an application for maintenance is filed and all sort of defenses are raised in order to ensure that they do not pay maintenance to the wife and children. It is the duty of the husband to ensure that proper maintenance is given to his wife and children because apart from their being a moral obligation, it is also a statutory obligation cast on them by law. It is well settled position in law that if the court comes to the conclusion that there is an attempt not to disclose the real income then adverse inference can be drawn against him."
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 12 of 25
15. It is clear from the pleadings and arguments that the factum of marriage and the child born from the said marriage and that said child is presently residing with the complainant, is not in dispute.
16. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent/ husband has argued that Ld. Trial Court has erred in awarding the amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance for child per month alongwith arrears from date of filing application i.e. 16.08.2022, instead from the date of passing of impugned order.
17. To address the aforesaid issue, reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 (arising out of SLP No. 9503/2018) dated 04.11.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that :-
Date from which Maintenance to be awarded. There is no provision in the HMA with respect to the date from which an Order of maintenance may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, does not provide the date from which the maintenance is to be awarded. Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is the only statutory provision which provides that the Magistrate may award maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of application.
In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family Courts in the country, with respect to the date from which maintenance must be awarded. The divergent views taken by the Family Courts are : first, from the date on CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 13 of 25 which the application for maintenance was filed; second, the date of the order granting maintenance; third, the date on which the summons was served upon the respondent.
(a) From date of application The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependant children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years.
The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v Rabindra Nath Sahu held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in Courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order.
In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena, the Orissa High Court was considering an application u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was within the discretion of the Court, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v Urmila Jena, wherein it was reiterated that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 14 of 25 The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jain v Dharam Raj Jain held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the Court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view that the "normal rule"
was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2) Cr.P.C., which the Legislature did not intend. Reasons must be recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of order.
The law governing payment of maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v Additional District Judge, Gonda & Ors. The Court held that the date of application should always be regarded as the starting point for payment of maintenance. The Court was considering a suit for maintenance u/S. 18 of HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment. The High Court held that the normal inference should be that the order of maintenance would be effective from the date of application. A party seeking maintenance would otherwise be deprived of maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the application, which may arise due to paucity of time of the Court, or on account of the conduct of one of the parties. In this case, there was a delay of seven years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not be made to starve till such time. The wife was held to be entitled to maintenance from the date of application / suit.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 15 of 25 The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v Rukmani held that where the wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses towards maintaining herself and the minor child / children, she is entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application. Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the financial crunch, which occurs on account of her separation from her husband. It is neither a matter of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the husband.
(b) From the date of order The second view that maintenance ought to be awarded from the date of order is based on the premise that the general rule is to award maintenance from the date of order, and grant of maintenance from the date of application must be the exception. The foundation of this view is based on the interpretation of Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. which provides :
"(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be."
The words "or, if so ordered" in Section 125 has been interpreted to mean that where the court is awarding maintenance from the date of application, special reasons ought to be recorded.
In Bina Devi v State of U.P ., the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of S.125(2) of the Cr.P.C. held that when maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of application, the Court must record reasons. If the order is silent, it will be effective from the date of the order, for which reasons need not be recorded. The CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 16 of 25 Court held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v Sangeeta Verma & Ors. directed that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of the order.
(c) From the date of service of summons The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of service of summons upon the respondent.
The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v K.M.K. Nair was considering an application for interim maintenance preferred by the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the husband. The High Court held that maintenance must be awarded to the wife from the date on which summons were served in the main divorce petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Samir Banerjee v Sujata Banerjee, and held that Section 24 of the HMA does not contain any provision that maintenance must be awarded from a specific date. The Court may, in exercise of its discretion, award maintenance from the date of service of summons.
The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das v Pradyumna Kumar Das was considering an application for interim maintenance filed u/S. 24 HMA by the wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the husband. The Court held that the ordinary rule is to award maintenance from the date of service of summons. It was held that in cases where the applicant in the maintenance petition is also the petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance becomes payable from the date when summons is served upon the respondent in the main proceeding. CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 17 of 25 In Kalpana Das v Sarat Kumar Das , the Orissa High Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance from the date when the husband entered appearance. The Court was considering an application for interim maintenance u/S. 24 HMA in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the wife and minor child from the date of the order. In an appeal filed by the wife and minor child seeking maintenance from the date of application, the High Court held that the Family Court had failed to assign any reasons in support of its order, and directed :-
"9. ...Learned Judge. Family Court has not assigned any reason as to why he passed the order of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of order. When admittedly the parties are living separately and prima facie it appears that the Petitioners have no independent source of income, therefore, in our view order should have been passed for payment of interim maintenance from the date of appearance of the Opposite Party- husband..."
Discussion and Directions The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded.
Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in S. 125(2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 18 of 25 therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of application.
In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak, this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v Meena, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application.
The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependent from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the concerned Court.
In Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held :
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 19 of 25 "13.3. ...purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice.
Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice. While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society."
It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant."
18. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of respondent/ husband by awarding the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application and I find no infirmity in the order of Ld. Trial Court.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 20 of 25
19. Ld. Counsel for respondent/ husband has argued that Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order has wrongly observed that minor child has additional expenses of Rs. 28000/- other than the school fees etc and that complainant has well qualified and presently employed and getting sufficient income to maintain herself and the child.
20. 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.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 21 of 25
21. 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 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.
22. Even if, for the sake of deciding the present appeal, it is believed that complainant is well qualified or is working somewhere and can maintain herself, then also this issue is no more 'res integra' in view of settled position of law. 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.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 22 of 25
23. 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.
24. It is well established principle that an able-bodied man cannot shirk from his responsibility to maintain his wife/ children or compensate for domestic abuse solely on the ground of financial hardship. Financial difficulties cannot be a ground to deny maintenance or compensation under the Domestic Violence Act. It is the legal and moral duty of the husband to provide for his wife and children.
25. During the course of arguments, both the parties have also referred to their income affidavits filed on record. Perusal of the same shows that both the parties are well educated. Further, the FDRs and ITRs of the parties were considered vide impugned order by Ld. Trial Court, extensively which needs no repetition for the sake of brevity. Ld. Trial Court has taken a balanced and just approach which reflects the judicial mind and due consideration of all relevant aspects while considering the aforesaid documents.
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 23 of 25
26. From a bare perusal of income affidavit of respondent/ husband along-with other records, it would be safe to conclude that monthly income of respondent/ husband is rightly assessed by Ld. Trial Court as Rs. 1,00,000/- per month approximately from all sources. Undisputedly, at present, child is residing with the complainant. Further, it is revealed from the record, the respondent/ husband has been evasive in providing true details of his income and assets to the court and his real income as well as his movable and immovable properties in order to hoodwink the process of law.
27. Further, the claims made by the respondent/ husband that the complainant is highly educated and is capable of earning or is earning, is also not tenable as a woman who is educated and is also looking after her child alone and living in a tenanted premises, cannot be expected to give her child a decent living with good education.
28. In view of the aforesaid appreciation and record of this case, I find that respondent / husband is still sufficiently remunerated and has assets generating income to provide a meaningful maintenance to his wife and child. Ld. Trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the parties and expenditure of child as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, in the aforesaid background, the maintenance towards minor child as awarded by Ld. Trial Court is adequate, not on higher side and has been granted after considering the responsibility of respondent/ husband to maintain his minor child and he is also under legal obligation to give him decent living by providing basic necessities, from CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 24 of 25 the date of filing of the aforesaid application. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby respondent/ husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for maintenance of his minor child.
29. In these circumstances, it is for the respondent/ husband to manage his expenses and merely giving the details of expenses by him, does not absolve him from maintaining his minor child. The aforesaid ground taken by respondent/ husband by way of present appeal, is devoid of merit and therefore, is discarded and dismissed accordingly. I am of the considered opinion that respondent/ husband, is capable of paying the interim maintenance as awarded by Ld. Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 22.11.2023 for the maintenance of child.
30. Hence, I conclude that Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order legally and correctly. It was not perverse in nature. The impugned order dated 22.11.2023 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.
Announced In The Digitally signed
by SHEETAL
SHEETAL
Open Court Today CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date: 2025.07.17
16:08:02 +0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
17.07.2025
CA No. 44/2024 Vineet Gandhi Vs. Shikha Gandhi Page no. 25 of 25