Delhi District Court
Afsana Mansoori vs Shaukeen Ahmad Mansoori on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHISH RASTOGI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-05 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of
CA No.29/2025
Smt. Afsana Mansoori
D/o Sh. Shakeel Ahmed Mansoori
R/o H.No.434, Gali no.20, Near Water Office,
Shati Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
.......Appellant
Vs.
1. Sh. Shokeen Ahmed Mansoori (Husband)
2. Sh. Musrat (Brother in law)
3. Smt. Ishrat (Sister in law)
4. Smt. Noor Jahan (Aunt in law)
All R/o H.No.102, Afganan Thana Kiratpur,
Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor, U.P.246731.
Also at:-
M/S Vanilla Salon & Academy
Shop No.3 & 4, Gold Crown Society, Opposite
ICICI Bank 7 Banglows, Andehri West
Mumbai
........... Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.02.2025
Arguments completed : 17.12.2025
Date of order : 07.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal against Order dated 07.11.2024 Ashish passed by Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-01, East Rastogi Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 1 of 36 Date: 2026.03.07 16:59:03 +0530 District, KKD, Delhi whereby petition U/s PW D.V. Act 2005 of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The core controversy which is to be decided through this appeal is whether the Respondent perpetrated domestic violence upon the Appellant and if so of what nature and whether the conclusion arrived by the Ld. Trial Court in dismissing the Petition of the Appellant deserves any interference in exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
3. The Ld. Trial Court held the facts as averred by the Appellant in her Petition and the evidence led by her as not sufficient to bring her in the ambit of an 'Aggrieved person' under Section 2(a) of DV Act, since the primary requirement for the petitioner to be an aggrieved person is that she must be a woman in the domestic relationship and should have been a victim of domestic violence in such a relationship. After discussing the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act, the Ld. Trial Court held that she could not prove that any domestic violence was perpetrated upon her by the Accused persons. The reasoning of the Ld. Trial Court primarily rests on the fact that the allegations are vague, general and omnibus and devoid of any specific details as to CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 2 of 36 date, time and month etc. and hence cannot be relied upon.
4. Before moving further, it would be pertinent to highlight the purpose and objective of DV Act, 2005. The said act was enacted to counter the growing menace of harassment and abuse of women within the domestic relationship. Before the advent of the Act, Civil law remedies like divorce existed but there was no mechanism for quick monetary relief and no enforceable action against the abuser. In other words, while the women were forced to leave her matrimonial home, the case dragged on. Therefore, the DV Act was enacted keeping into account the above factors and incorporated various provisions like Residence Orders and interim maintenance during the pendency of the dispute, so that the interest of women in domestic relationship is protected and she as well the children born out of the wedlock are not reduced to state of destitution and vagrancy. The Act also served the purpose of bringing India at par with the international covenants to which India is a signatory which specifically call on the member states to protect women within the domestic relationship from any form of violence.
5. The relevant excerpt of Statement of objectives CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 3 of 36 and reasons of the Act is worth mentioning here:
1."Domestic Violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledge this. The United Nations Committee and Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation No.XII(1989) has recommended that state parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family".
2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a women is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety.
3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of Constitution to provide for a CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 4 of 36 remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.
6. One of the most important highlights of the Act is that it provides for a very expansive definition of "Domestic Violence" and encompasses within its fold not only physical abuse but also verbal, sexual and economic abuse. The said feature and expansive definition is also crucial to the fact situation at hand.
7. Coming to the case at hand, as already discussed, the Ld. Trial Court has held that the physical violence could not be proved by the Appellant as the allegations are general and omnibus in nature, devoid of any specific detail. Here it can also not be lost sight of the fact that the Respondents did not enter appearance in the Ld. Trial Court. The Counsel for Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Husband of the Appellant entered appearance only once i.e. on 24.01.2023 wherein he was given an opportunity to file reply to the Petition u/s 12 of the DV Act and application u/s 23 of the DV Act within 30 days. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 did not appear either in person or through his CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 5 of 36 counsel and the matter was decided ex-parte and finally disposed off vide impugned judgment dated 07.11.2024. In the Petition as well as in the evidence led, the Appellant levelled various allegations of physical harassment upon the accused persons but the same remained uncontroverted as the matter was decided ex-parte and the Ld. Trial Court observed that even if the Respondents have not entered appearance, the case of the Petitioner has to stand on its own legs and the factum of domestic violence is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of "X" vs. State & Anr. decided on 28.07.2025 vide neutral citation No. 2025:DHC:6114.
16. It is pertinent to note that the case of the petitioner was brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner had failed to provide the exact date and manner of physical cruelty/harassment. However, merely because the petitioner failed to provide the exact date and time of the alleged tortures does not tantamount to mean that the case of the petitioner is without any basis.
8. Therefore, it is clear that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has clearly observed that even if the CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 6 of 36 petitioner has not mentioned the exact date and time, the petition of the Petitioner cannot be brushed aside only on that ground. Be that as it may, the Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned about the lack of corroborative material on record like any prompt police complaint or any medical document regarding the physical abuse. It has also noted that although a complaint was given by the Complainant in DCW (Ex CW1/7A), there is nothing to show what action was taken by DCW on the said complaint.
9. In these circumstances, it can be held that even if the factum of physical abuse against the Accused persons could not be conclusively proved, it is the considered opinion of this Court that where the Ld. Trial Court has erred is that in place of physical abuse it has used the word 'domestic violence'. In other words, it has come to conclusion that merely because the allegations of physical abuse could not be proved, no domestic violence was meted to the Appellant. What the Ld. Trial Court has failed to observe is a very expansive definition has been provided of 'Domestic violence' under Section 3 of the DV Act in which physical abuse is not the only constituent of domestic violence. The Ld. Trial CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 7 of 36 Court has not returned any finding on whether, from the material on record available with the Ld. Trial Court, any economic abuse was meted by the Respondents or not particularly Respondent No. 1 i.e. the husband of the Appellant. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of "X" vs. State & Anr. decided on 28.07.2025 vide neutral citation No. 2025:DHC:6114.
11. An examination of Section 3 of the DV Act makes it manifest that the term 'domestic violence' includes economic abuse.
The DV Act has defined economic abuse as deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled to under any law and or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance
10. Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act placed as CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 8 of 36 under:-
Definition of domestic violence.--For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--
(i) "physical abuse" means CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 9 of 36 any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes--
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) "economic abuse"
includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited 5 to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 10 of 36 person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
11. Coming to the facts of this case at hand, the existence of shared household and domestic relationship between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 is admitted. The factum of marriage has been proved through the marriage CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 11 of 36 certificates, it is also an admitted fact that two children named Jainab and Farhan aged about 10 years and 9 years respectively were born out of the wedlock and their birth certificates bear the name of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 as parents.
12. Now, it is the specific allegation of the Appellant that not even a single penny is being paid by Respondent No. 1 towards the legitimate needs of the Appellant and two minor children born out of the wedlock. Since the matter proceeded ex-parte, it can be held that no explanation has been offered by Respondent No.1 as to why the Appellant is living separately. Nothing is on record to show that Respondent No. 1 made any attempts so that the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 can reside together rather it is the case of the Appellant that Respondent No.1 is residing in Mumbai and working in a beauty parlour getting Rs 70,000 a month. There is further nothing on record to show that any amount is being paid or has been paid towards the legitimate expenses of the minor children born out of the wedlock. It is the case of the Appellant that the entire expenses towards the minor children are being borne by herself. The said facts remain unrebutted as there is no reply of Respondent No.1 on record and no evidence CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 12 of 36 has been led by Respondent No. 1 to controvert the same. The same is sufficient to bring the conduct of Respondent No. 1 within the purview of 'domestic violence' as defined in Section 3 of the DV Act under "economic abuse". As evident from the conjoint reading of Section 3 and Section 2(a) of DV Act, "economic abuse" is a form and a subset of domestic violence sufficient to bring the victim of "economic abuse" within the purview of "aggrieved person".
13. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of "X" vs. State & Anr. decided on 28.07.2025 vide neutral citation No. 2025:DHC:6114.
18. The petitioner has also been raising her minor child, and Respondent No. 2, prior to the passing of the order granting interim maintenance in the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, had failed to provide any maintenance to the petitioner or the minor child. As already noted by this Court, the term domestic violence encapsulates 'economic abuse.' A Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar v. Uma:
2024:DHC:80 in relation to the scope of the term 'domestic violence' had CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 13 of 36 observed as under:-
"The 'domestic relationship' between the petitioner and complainant is not disputed. 'Domestic violence' may be by physical harm or injury endangering the health safety, life, limb, or 'well being' which may be mental or physical of 'aggrieved person'.
Further the same includes physical, sexual, verbal, 'emotional' and 'economic' abuse. The object of the Act is to provide for more effective provisions to safeguard the rights of the women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family, and for matters connected therewith or incidentally thereof."
19. Admittedly, the petitioner was living separately from Respondent No. 2 since 21.04.2012. As noted above, no explanation was offered by Respondent No. 2 as to why the petitioner left his company except the fact that she did so of her own accord. However, as already noted, no petition for restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 14 of 36 Respondent No.2. Only a legal notice calling upon the petitioner to join Respondent No. 2's company was sent to the petitioner, which in the opinion of this Court, does not inspire confidence. As noted above, the petitioner has been raising her minor child and is stated to be not gainfully employed. It is also not the case of Respondent No.2 that maintenance was offered by him for upkeep of the Petitioner and the minor child. This Court, thus, is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation on account of 'economic abuse'.
14. Monetary Reliefs:
Having come to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 is guilty of 'economic abuse' and hence 'domestic violence', the only question which is to be decided is with respect to monetary reliefs. In relation to the same, Section 20 of the DV Act holds as under:
(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 CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 15 of 36 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
(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.
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 16 of 36 respondent resides.
(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1). (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.
15.Regarding the quantum of maintenance to be awarded, extensive guidelines have been provided in the landmark judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018) Decided On:
04.11.2020 which can be gainfully relied here. The same are as follows:
75. The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu MANU/OR/0176/1996 : 1996 (I) OLR 361 held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 17 of 36 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.
76. In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Smt. Nirmala Jena MANU/OR/0326/2000 :
2001 Cri LJ 879, the Orissa High Court was considering an application Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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, MANU/OR/0082/2010 : (2010) 93 AIC 726 (Ori) wherein it was reiterated that dependents were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.
77. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna Jain v. Dharam Raj Jain MANU/MP/0156/1991 : 1993 (2) MPJR 63 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 CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 18 of 36 "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) Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.
78. The law governing payment of maintenance Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Additional District Judge, Gonda and Ors. MANU/UP/1905/2019 : 2019 (6) ADJ 850 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 Under Section 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 CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 19 of 36 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.
79. The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh Shukla v. Rukmani 15 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
80. 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) Code of Criminal Procedure which provides:
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 20 of 36 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.
(emphasis supplied)
81. 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.16
82. In Bina Devi v. State of U.P., MANU/UP/0057/2010 : (2010) 69 ACC 19 the Allahabad High Court on an interpretation of Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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) Code of Criminal Procedure is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order.
83. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit Verma v. Sangeeta Verma and Ors.17 directed that maintenance ought to be granted from the date of the order.
(c) From the date of service of summons.
84. The third view followed by some Courts is that maintenance ought to be CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 21 of 36 granted from the date of service of summons upon the Respondent.
85. The Kerala High Court in S. Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair MANU/KE/0031/1983 : AIR 1983 Ker 139 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, MANU/WB/0386/1965 : 70 CWN 633 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.
86 . The Orissa High Court in Gouri Das v. Pradyumna Kumar Das MANU/OR/0189/1986 : 1986 (II) OLR 44 was considering an application for interim maintenance filed Under Section 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, CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 22 of 36 maintenance becomes payable from the date when summons is served upon the Respondent in the main proceeding.
87. In Kalpana Das v. Sarat Kumar Das, MANU/OR/0180/2009 : AIR 2009 Ori 133 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 Under Section 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 hepassed 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...
(emphasis supplied) CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 23 of 36 Discussion and Directions:
88. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded.
89 . 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 Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.
90. In Shail Kumari Devi and Ors. v.
Krishnan Bhagwan Pathak MANU/SC/3353/2008 : 2008 9 SCC 632, 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 MANU/SC/0605/2014 : 2015 6 SCC 353, this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 24 of 36 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.
91. 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 dependant spouse hampers their capacity to be effectively represented before the Court. In order to prevent a dependant 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.
92. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse MANU/SC/1084/2013 : (2014) 1 SCC 188, the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held:
13.3. ...purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 25 of 36 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.
(emphasis supplied)
93. 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. V Enforcement of orders of maintenance
94. Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging issue, which is encountered by the CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 26 of 36 applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation. Execution petitions usually remain pending for months, if not years, which completely nullifies the object of the law. The Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh Chhawda v. Viresh Nagsi Chhawda MANU/MH/0021/1996 : AIR 1996 Bom 94 held that:
The direction of interim alimony and expenses of litigation Under Section 24 is one of urgency and it must be decided as soon as it is raised and the law takes care that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds.
(i) An application for execution of an Order of Maintenance can be filed under the following provisions:
(a) Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (sic1955) r.w.
Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Order XXI Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure for executing an Order passed Under Section 24 of the Hindu 17-11-2020 (Page 35 of 48) www.manupatra.com Library Dwarka Marriage Act (before the Family Court);
(b) Section 20(6) of the DV Act (before the Judicial Magistrate); and
(c) Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate's Court.
(ii) Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that orders passed by the Family Court shall be CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 27 of 36 executable in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure/Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the party against whom the order of maintenance is passed fails to comply with the order of maintenance, the same shall be recovered in the manner as provided for fines, and the Magistrate may award sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or until payment, whichever is earlier.
Striking off the Defence
(i) Some Family Courts have passed orders for striking off the defence of the Respondent in case of non- payment of maintenance, so as to facilitate speedy disposal of the maintenance petition. In Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain18, the Supreme Court allowed a Family Court to strike off the defence of the Respondent, in case of non-payment of maintenance in accordance with the interim order passed.
(ii) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bani v. Parkash Singh AIR 1996 P&H 175 was considering a case where the husband failed to comply with the maintenance order, despite several notices, for a period of over two years. The Court taking note of the power to strike off the defence of the Respondent, held that:
Law is not that powerless CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 28 of 36 as not to bring the husband to book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses to wife, his defence be struck out.
(iii) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohinder Verma v. Sapna MANU/PH/3684/2014, discussed the issue of striking off the defence in the following words:
8. Section 24 of the Act empowers the matrimonial court to award maintenance pendente lite and also litigation expenses to a needy and indigent spouse so that the proceedings can be conducted without any hardship on his or her part. The proceedings under this Section are summary in nature and confers a substantial right on the Applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. Where this amount is not paid to the applicant, then the very object and purpose of this provision stands defeated. No doubt, remedy of execution of decree or order passed by the matrimonial court is available Under Section 28A of the Act, but the same would not be a bar to striking off the defence of the spouse who violates the interim order of maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the said Court. In other words, the striking off the defence of the spouse not honouring the court's interim order is the instant relief to CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 29 of 36 the needy one instead of waiting endlessly till its execution Under Section 28A of the Act. Where the spouse who is to pay maintenance fails to discharge the liability, the other spouse cannot be forced to adopt time consuming execution proceedings for realising the amount.
Court cannot be a mute spectator watching flagrant disobedience of the interim orders passed by it showing its helplessness in its instant implementation. It would, thus, be appropriate even in the absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, to strike off the defence of the erring spouse in exercise of its inherent power Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Act rather than to leave the aggrieved party to seek its enforcement through execution as execution is a long and arduous procedure. Needless to say, the remedy Under Section 28A of the Act regarding execution of decree or interim order does not stand obliterated or extinguished by striking off the defence of the defaulting spouse. Thus, where the spouse who is directed to pay the maintenance and litigation expenses, the legal consequences for its non-payment are that the defence of the said spouse is liable to be struck off.
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) The Delhi High Court in Satish Kumar v. Meena MANU/DE/0771/2001 : 2001 CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 30 of 36 (60) DRJ 246 held that the Family Court had inherent powers to strike off the defence of the Respondent, to ensure that no abuse of process of the court takes place. The Delhi High Court in Smt. Santosh Sehgal v. Shri Murari Lal Sehgal, MANU/DE/2213/2006 : AIR 2007 Delhi 210 framed the following issue for consideration: "Whether the appeal against the decree of divorce filed by the Appellant-
wife can be allowed straightway without hearing the Respondent/husband in the event of his failing to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses granted to the wife during the pendency of the appeal."
The reference was answered as follows:
5. The reference to the portion of the judgment in Bani's case extracted herein-above would show that the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Orissa Page 2216 High Court have taken an unanimous view that in case the husband commits default in payment of interim maintenance to his wife and children then he is not entitled to any matrimonial relief in proceedings by or against him. The view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bani's case has been followed by a Single Judge of this CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 31 of 36 Court in Satish Kumar v. Meena. We tend to agree with this view as it is in consonance with the first principle of law. We are of the view that when a husband is negligent and does not pay maintenance to his wife as awarded by the Court, then how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him in the matrimonial proceedings. We have no hesitation in holding that in case the husband fails to pay maintenance and litigation expenses to his wife granted by the Court during the pendency of the appeal, then the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce granted by the trial court in favor of the husband has to be allowed. Hence the question referred to us for decision is answered in the affirmative. The Court concluded that if there was non-
payment of interim maintenance, the defence of the Respondent is liable to be struck off, and the appeal filed by the Appellant-wife can be allowed, without hearing the Respondent. (v) The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurvinder Singh v. Murti and Ors.19 was considering a case where the trial court stuck off the defence of the husband for non-payment of ad- interim maintenance. The High Court set aside the order of the trial court, and held that instead of following the correct procedure for recovery of interim maintenance as provided Under Section 125 (3) or Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court erred in striking off the defence of the husband. The error of CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 32 of 36 the court did not assist in recovery of interim maintenance, but rather prolonged the litigation between the parties.
(vi) The issue whether defence can be struck off in proceedings Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure came up before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Venkateshwar Dwivedi v. Ruchi Dwivedi.20 The Court held that neither Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor Section 10 of the Family Courts Act either expressly or by necessary implication empower the Magistrate or Family Court to strike off the defence. A statutory remedy for recovery of maintenance was available, and the power to strike off defence does not exist in a proceeding Under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. Such power cannot be presumed to exist as an inherent or implied power. The Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Davis v. Thomas,21 and held that the Magistrate does not possess the power to strike off the defence for failure to pay interim maintenance.
Discussion and Directions on
Enforcement of Orders of
Maintenance
95. The order or decree of
maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 33 of 36 civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI.
16. As far as awarding the monetary reliefs is concerned, there can be no straight jacket formula which can be employed while determining the income of the husband. Therefore, some guesswork on the part of the courts is inevitable since the parties have the tendency to hide their true income also. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of "X" vs. State & Anr. decided on 28.07.2025 vide neutral citation No. 2025:DHC:6114 can be beneficially relied, wherein has been held:
21. It is also common knowledge and has been observed by this Court in many cases that it is a normal tendency of the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes to not disclose their true income. The Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning (Ref:
Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde : 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622). Consequently, in such circumstances, the CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 34 of 36 assessment of Respondent No. 2's monthly income at ₹20,000/- is correct.
22. This Court in the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra : 2004 (74) DRJ 99 had observed that the court should initially determine the net disposable income of the Husband or the primary earner within the family. If the other spouse is also employed, those earnings should be taken into consideration. This collective income forms the Family Resource Cake, which is then distributed among the family members. The allocation of this "cake" should align with the financial needs of each family member, and an equitable approach would involve dividing the Family Resource Cake into two portions for the Husband, acknowledging his additional expenses incurred in earning, and one portion each for the other members.
17. As Respondent No.1 has not filed the income and assets affidavit, this Court deems it fit to award maintenance based on the Minimum wages as applicable to semi-skilled workers in Delhi and the same being Rs. 21,813/- which is inclusive CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 35 of 36 dearness allowance.
18. Pressing into service the approach as referred above by the Hon'ble High Court, the said income is to be treated as the 'family resource cake' and the same is to be equitably distributed accordingly between the family members taking into account their needs. The Appellant is not gainfully employed anywhere as per her affidavit of income and assets. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate that the amount of maintenance to be paid by Respondent No. 1 be determined at Rs 12,000 per month i.e. Rs 4,000 each for wife and two minor children applicable from the date of filing of the Application. Arrears of Maintenance to be paid within 30 days of the passing of the order.
19. In light of the above, the Appeal stands allowed qua Respondent No.1.
20. TCR record be sent back to Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of this order.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Copy of this order be given dasti, as prayed.
Ashish (ASHISH RASTOGI) Rastogi Addl. Sessions Judge -05 Digitally signed by Ashish Rastogi KKD Courts/EastDstt./Delhi Date: 2026.03.07 Announced in the open court 16:59:16 +0530 on this 7th March 2026 CA No.29/2025 Afsana Mansoori Vs. Shaukeen Ahmad Masnoori Page 36 of 36