Delhi District Court
Manjul Joshi vs Bhavna Khurana on 23 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 385/2024
PS- C.R. Park
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Manjul Joshi
S/o Sh. Devraj Joshi
R/o H. No. 2/32, 1st Floor
Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi.
.... Appellant
VERSUS
Bhavna Khurana
D/o Sh. S.P. Khurana
R/o H. No. 81, Godavari Apartments
Alaknanda, Delhi- 110019.
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.12.2024
Date of Arguments : 05.04.2024
Date of pronouncement : 23.04.2024
Decision : Appeal Dismissed.
Impugned Order Stands
Upheld.
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 1 of 17
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) by the appellant Manjul Joshi against the order dated 18.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT Case No. 283/2023 titled as "Bhavna KhuranaVs. Manjul Joshi" whereby Ld. Trial Court has directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month to the minor son namely Aditya Joshi with effect from the date of filing of the petition till its final disposal. Further, appellant has also been directed to reimburse Rs. 50,000/- per month to the complainant towards the EMI of the home loan till disposal of complaint case or pay the same directly to the bank and also continue paying Rs. 15000/- as an EMI for the property situated in Siddharth Vihar, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Further, appellant has been restrained from accessing or visiting the H. No. 81, Godavari Apartments, DDA Alaknanda, New Delhi- 110019 till the final disposal of the present petition.
2. 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 complaint of complainant, are as follows :-
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 2 of 17 "It is stated that the marriage of the complainant and respondent was solemnized on 07.05.2009 at Delhi between the parties according to Hindu rites and customs at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Saket, New Delhi. As it was a love marriage, hence, the parents of the complainant were totally against the said marriage. The disapproval of the parents of the parties was to such an extent that they did not attend the marriage. From the wedlock, one male child namely Aditya was born on 30.10.2007. It has been alleged that complainant was subjected to the physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal & emotional abuse as well as the economic abuse committed by the Respondent. The parties were residing at 81, Godavari Apartments, Alaknanda, Delhi, 110019 which is co-owned by the parties until 23.01.2023. It has been further alleged that presently the complainant has had to moved out of her matrimonial home due to the repeated abuse meted out against her by the respondent and is presently residing at N-3, Tara Apartments, Delhi 110019. It has been further alleged that the Complainant has been constrained to approach the Court as a result of the continuous domestic violence including but not limited to physical, mental sexual and economic abuse of the Complainant by the Respondent from the inception of their marriage. The violence committed by the Respondent has increased and taken new forms as the Complainant has approached the police for the behaviour of the Respondent, and also approached Ld. Family Court, Saket seeking divorce from the Respondent as a result of his cruel acts. Thereafter, the acts of the Respondent have grown even more absurd and CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 3 of 17 violent and the Complainant has been compelled to move out of her matrimonial home i.e. the property at 81, Godavari Apartments, Alaknanda, Delhi-110019, which is co-owned by the Parties."
4. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties on the interim applications moved by the complainant, has passed the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 thereby directing the appellant/ husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the minor son namely Aditya Joshi with effect from the date of filing of the petition till its final disposal. Further, appellant/ husband has also been directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the complainant towards the EMI of the home loan till disposal of present petition. Further, appellant/ husband has been restrained from accessing or visiting the H. No. 81, Godavari Apartments, DDA Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 till final disposal of present petition.
5. Feeling aggrieved to the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, appellant/ husband has challenged the said order by way of present appeal on the following grounds :-
a) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the complainant has failed to show prima facie that she is unable to maintain herself or the minor child or that appellant has neglected to maintain the minor child.
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 4 of 17
b) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that complainant is seeking maintenance for the minor child whereas the Appellant is already paying Rs. 1,60,598/-annually towards the School Fees, transportation, trips and medical insurances of Rs. 43,368/- with ICICI Lombard and Rs. 34,957 towards National Insurance the minor child i.e., Rs. 20,000/- p.m. in total for the child. Further the minor son himself has refused to meet the Appellant, as mentioned in order dated 26.10.2024 passed by Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. JFC, South-east, Saket Courts, Delhi in GP No. 13/23 titled as Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavana Khurana. Copy of order dated 26.10.2024 passed by Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. JFC, South-east, Saket Courts, Delhi.
c) That Ld. Trial Court did not consider that Appellant has always taken care of the minor child and is still available for the minor child however due to attempts of alienation on behalf of the complainant and poisoning of mind of minor child, the child has cut off all his ties with Appellant. This evident from the fact that Appellant has taken accommodation near the school of child, work from home arrangement to look after the child, so that the burden is not on the mother.
d) That Ld. Trial Court initially made observations that complainant has not been able to substantiate the expenses incurred by her towards the minor son to the tune of Rs. 1,48,000 per month and prima facie the alleged expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the account of the minor child are completely exaggerated and assumed without any basis or material on record whatsoever.
e) That Ld. Trial Court did not observe that complainant is unable to take care of the minor child and is not investing any time, resources or emotions etc. in the minor child as apparent from the fact that despite the complainant being a teacher of Math's to IAS Aspirants, the minor child failed in Class X pre-board Maths, failed in Class XI in Maths, failed all Class XII Maths Assignments, failed in Class XII Mid-terms CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 5 of 17 of Maths and Economics and failed in Class XII Mid-term re- examination of Maths as well. That further the minor child is not attending School regularly and taking leaves often in addition to leaving School early.
f) That Ld. Trial Court has further did not observe that minor child does not have the expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- p.m. which is apparent that under the heading of "Relevant documents pertaining to the expenses of the son" in List of Additional Documents dated 08.10.2024 filed by the complainant and complainant has provided the bills pertaining to the Dog.
g) That Ld. Trial Court has observed that appellant has admitted that his father draws a pension of Rs. 51,000/-p.m. hence the mother and sister cannot be treated as appellant's dependents. Thus, three adult members, two out of which are senior citizen while the other one suffers from Down Syndrome are expected to take care of themselves in Rs.51000 - only while the minor child's expenses are Rs. 1,50000/- pm.
h) That Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order while burdening the Appellant with an exorbitant amount of Rs. 1 ,00,000/- and Rs. 50000 /- towards maintenance of minor son and EMI of Alaknanda's property respectively did not appreciate the fact that the Appellant is earning in hand Rs. 2 ,70,000/- per month only whereas on the other hand, the Respondent is a sole proprietor of M/s. Mathemax and is earning Rs. 1.5 Crore p.a., which is verifiable clearly from the complainant's Current Bank Account in Canara Bank (after deduction of Rs. 14.90 Lacs as GST, it is Rs. 1,35,10,000/- p.a. in hand).
i) That complainant before the Ld. Trial Court was claiming that she is earning Rs. 3,24,000/- (Less 18% GST) thus in hand Rs.2,70,000/- per month only, however, she is deliberately suppressing her Balance Sheet and Profit-Loss Statement of her Sole Proprietorship CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 6 of 17 namely "Mathemax" and argued repeatedly before the Ld. Trial Court that she is not maintaining Books of Accounts. The Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order did not consider the documentary evidence filed by the Appellant by way of additional documents dated 18.09.2024 where on Page No. 1-2 contains Balance Sheet and Profit- loss Statement of Mathemax for year ending on 31.03.2020 as well as her Income Affidavit as per Rajnesh v. Neha Judgment in Table I. Column 3 has stated "the recent tax invoices submitted by the Complainant for the books of accounts maintained in the name of the sole proprietorship are annexed herewith" thus clearly the she has committed perjury.
j) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the documentary evidence in the form of Balance Sheet and Profit-loss Statement of M/s. Mathemax for year ending on 31.03.2020, which shows that the Respondent received Rs. 79,41,090/- as Professional Fees from Vajiram & Ravi during the Financial Year i.e., Rs. 6,61,757/- per month, which is more than double the abovesaid income alleged by the Respondent i.e. Rs. Rs. 3,24,000/- (Less 18% GST).
k) That Ld. Trial Court fell in grave error of law by not considering fact that complainant has failed to disclose any reason due to which she allegedly stopped maintaining books of accounts after 2020, whereas Sec. 44AA of Income Tax Act and Rule 6F of Income Tax Rules clearly mandates to maintain books of accounts, as the Respondent's income from business or profession exceeds Rs. 1,20,000/- or turnover or gross receipts exceed Rs. 10,00,000/- in 3 preceding years.
l) That Ld. Trial Court while observing the financial aspects of the Appellant and complainant did not consider the fact that complainant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Mathemax and she is earning around Rs.1,50,00,000/- per annum from the said firm i.e., Rs. 12,50,000/- p.m., whereas on the other hand the Appellant is earning Rs. 61,00,000/-
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 7 of 17 per annum as per the ITR for the year 2023-24 which comes out to around Rs. 5 lacs per month however the Appellant's in hand salary is Rs. 2,70,000/-only after deductions of PF, Tax (Rs. 19 Lacs for that year) etc. i.e., around 1/6th of the Respondent's monthly income.
m) That impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month to the complainant towards the EMI of the home loan of Alaknanda, Delhi property is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside as the Ld. Trial Court has clearly failed to take into account the payment of Rs. 10.80 Lacs pending upon the Appellant towards the Lotus Panche, Noida Property as well as the difference in earnings of the Parties as the complainant is responsible to bear only 1/7th of the total EMIs (Rs. 1,30,000/- p.m.).
n) That Ld. Trial Court while restraining the Appellant from accessing or visiting the H. No. 81, Godavari Apartments, DDA Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 did not appreciate the fact that the said property is the joint property of the parties and it was the Respondent who ousted the Appellant from said premises whereby every amenity was available, purchased at the expenses of the Appellant in which the Complainant borne little to no expenses.
o) That Ld. Trial Court has not considered that complainant left the Alaknanda Property of her own will on 23.01.2024 and the Appellant wrote various mails seeking arrangements from the complainant with respect to payment of EMIs with respect to the said Joint Property yet the Appellant paid the EMIs till Jan'2023 (i.e., 31 months) from the date of availing of Loan. Later on while the Appellant was attending his father who was admitted in the Hospital, the complainant entered the house on 25.09.2023 throwing the Appellant out of the Alaknanda property thus forcing the Appellant to reside on rent at Sarvapriya Vihar which the Ld. Trial Court has again did not appreciate.
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 8 of 17
6. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant has grossly inflated the child- related expenses in the expense chart and many of these claimed expenses such as for drawing, swimming, and violin classes are entirely baseless, fictitious, and wholly unsupported by any receipts or documentary proof whatsoever. Moreover, the complainant has also deployed tactics to show false payments to various individuals and misrepresenting them as the tuition fee of the child. It has been further argued that the appellant is already making payments towards school fees, transportation fees and trips of the child. That Rs. 10,000/- per month is claimed for family dog "coco" and one time charge such as a dentist visit has also been depicted as a recurring monthly payment. At best, the complainant is merely spending a meagre sum of Rs 30,000/- a month. It has been further argued that complainant is earning many times than the Appellant. That complainant, as per her Income Affidavit, claims to earn Rs. 2,70,000/- per month in hand, however, a thorough examination of the transactions recorded in the Canara Bank Account of her proprietorship, M/s Mathemax, for the financial year 2023-2024, reveals that her actual income stands at a staggering Rs.1,35,10,000/- per annum and each entry reflects amounts ranging from ₹3,24,000/- to 32,40,000/- disbursed on dates such as 13.04.2023, 10.05.2023, 25.09.2023, 05.02.2024, and 26.03.2024. The Ld. Trial Court proceeds on the premise that the "complainant has not pressed for any interim maintenance for her herself...", however the Respondent/ Complainant has already filed a Section 24 HMA Petition inter alia claiming a sum of Rs. 1,75,110 per month towards her maintenance and CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 9 of 17 that of her son and EMI amounting to approximately 14 Lakhs in a bid to forum shop the same relief from two Courts. It has been further argued that Appellant, on the other hand, earns a monthly income of Rs.2,50,000/-. The Ld. Trial Court vide its impugned order has ordered the Appellant to pay a substantial amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards EMIs and child maintenance. Furthermore, Appellant resides in a rented accommodation, incurring an expense of around Rs. 60,000/- per month, despite jointly owning 3 other properties with the Respondent, for which the Builder is now ready to hand over possession, but the Appellant has been unable to do the same on account of hindrance caused by the complainant. Consequently, the Appellant is left with a meagre amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month to meet all his personal, essential, and unavoidable expenses. It has been argued that Appellant has not been allowed to meet his son nor spend any time with him or the family dog either. The child despite these expenses is failing in his studies as evident from report cards. The appellant was kicked out of the property in a clandestine manner when he was looking after his father at a hospital. It has been argued that the appellant being the husband and 50% co-owner of property in question, may not be burdened with 50% of EMI when the exclusive possession and enjoyment of premises is with the complainant/wife. It has been argued that complainant who continues to reside in the property and derive full benefit thereof, while the appellant has been compelled to seek alternate accommodation on rent, incurring additional financial liability. In such circumstances, directing the appellant to bear half of EMI would amount to unfair burden and result in unjust enrichment of respondent.
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 10 of 17 Until such time as the appellant is granted joint possession or the property is otherwise equitably divided, no EMI liability should be fastened upon him. The offer to pay 50% EMI was made when the parties were together. It has been argued that directions may be passed to fix a reasonable, proportionate and fair amount towards child maintenance and EMIs, keeping in view the factual matrix detailed hereinabove and in the accompanying appeal. It has also been argued that complainant is an extremely wealthy individual, earning several times more than the appellant, and is financially far more capable of sustaining herself without any dependence on the appellant. Despite this, she has continuously initiated a series of litigation against the appellant, with the clear intent of subjecting him to sustained mental harassment and financial strain. The trajectory of litigation itself reflects a pattern of vindictiveness, where the respondent, rather than seeking resolution, has weaponized legal proceedings to cause maximum distress to the appellant. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant/ respondent has argued that in complainant is seeking relief with respect to payment of EMIs for the property situated at Flat No. 81, HIG Duplex, Floors 2 and 3, Godavari Apartments, DDA Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. That Respondent ought to pay Rs. 13,82,027/- towards the arrears of the EMIS paid by the complainant in October 2023 for the Accommodation and he has to clear arrears of EMIs amounting to Rs. 13,81,440/- paid CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 11 of 17 by complainant from November 2023 till October 2024 for the Accommodation. It has been argued that initially, the Respondent was paying the full EMIs till October 2022 and further, citing matrimonial dispute, the Respondent himself expressed his willingness to pay 50% of the EMIs whereas it is the complainant who continued to pay the entire EMI and has placed her reliance on emails sent by the appellant to HDFC Bank. It has been argued that appellant has to pay Rs.1,15,120/- for every month in future as entire monthly EMIs for the Accommodation. The complainant has already expended more than Rs.80 Lakhs in terms of initial payment, stamp duty and construction expenditure. Thereafter, she continued to pay for the entire EMIs till 18.11.2024 and despite the same, the impugned order only directs the appellant herein to pay for 50% of the EMIs from the date of the order. It has been further argued that ought not reduce the interim maintenance granted by Ld. Trial Court i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- per month since the complainant had provided detailed list of monthly expenses incurred for herself and the minor child and the latter alone amounts to Rs.1,48,000/- per month and the expenses incurred by the Appellant on the household expenditure as well as child's expenses has already been furnished before Ld. Trial Court. It has been argued that relevant entries of the complainant was also flagged for the assistance of Ld. Trial Court with respect to the expenses incurred on the child. The relevant entries have also been placed on record on behalf of the complainant under the head of "List of additional documents on behalf of the Complainant pursuant to the order of the court dated 19.09.2024" for a period from May 2024 until September 2024. It has been argued that complainant CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 12 of 17 has provided detailed bank statements, bills and screenshots of payments qua the minor child and despite the same, only Rs. 1,00,000/- has been granted vide impugned order. However, considering the fact that the order is interim in nature and can be modified basis leading of evidence, the complainant has not assailed the amount. It has been argued that Ld. Trial Court has determined the amount after considering all the requisite documents provided by the complainant and the same ought not be modified at this stage since the child is also about to start his higher studies. Further, the fact that complainant is a cancer survivor and incur medical expenses with regards to the same has also been observed in the impugned order. Ld. Counsel for complainant has also relied upon the case law titled as Farooq Ahmed Shala vs. Marie Chanel Giller, 2019 SCC Online Del 8972 and (2) Lopamudra Konwar Bhuyan and Ors. Vs Surajit Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8267.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by respective counsels of the parties and have carefully perused record including Trial Court Record.
9. 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:-
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 13 of 17 "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
(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."
10. It is clear from the pleadings and arguments that the factum of marriage and the child being born from the said marriage and that said child is presently residing with the complainant, is admitted by the parties. During the course of arguments, both the parties have referred to their income affidavits filed on record. Perusal of the same shows that both the parties are equally educated and have sufficient earnings. Further, the appellant has claimed to have been paying for the educational expenses of the minor child along-with other expenses like transportation etc. and the same is not disputed by the complainant.
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 14 of 17
11. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent/ appellant herein is with regard to the maintenance awarded by Ld. Trial Court towards the maintenance of minor child Aditya for a sum of Rs. 1 Lac. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that since the minor child is pursuing his education and has recently given his class 12 th examination, the child is requiring expenses as stated by the complainant before Ld. Trial Court and the same are not exaggerated as claimed by the respondent. It is argued that despite the fact that the child is admitted in a good school, due to the matrimonial disputes between the parties, the child is unable to concentrate on his studies and for the same reason, he is required to take private tuitions for all the subjects and there are educational expenses which are incurred upon the minor child. It is further argued that due to the marital discord between the parties, the child is also requiring therapy and medical sessions. It is also argued that apart from the aforesaid expenses, there are routine expenses for the child which the complainant has been paying and since the payments are made both in cash as well as through bank transfers/ online transfers, the complainant has specified them categorically in her income affidavit and has annexed documents in support of the same. It is further argued that with growing age and considering that the child shall be seeking admission in graduation, there are several other expenses which shall be incurred by the complainant and are required for the well being of the child. It has been argued by the respondent/ appellant that though the complainant has claimed of sending the child for music, swimming, violin classes, he is not aware regarding the timings or places where the child is taking any such classes and the CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 15 of 17 same have been mentioned by the complainant only with the intention to extract money from the respondent/ appellant who is not financially stable and has several other expenses including rental expenses as the respondent/ appellant is residing in a tenanted premises. In view of the present facts and circumstances and after carefully considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the income affidavits filed by both the parties before Ld. Trial Court, it cannot be ignored that the child Aditya is currently after finishing his class 12 th examination, is applying for admission to various places in India as well as abroad and for the same, the expenses on the child shall be incurred by the complainant. Even though, the child currently may not be specifically taking private tuitions for the subject of class 12 th, but it cannot be ignored that the child is preparing for several entrance examination for higher education in India as well as abraod and for the same there will be expenses incurred by the complainant. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of respondent repeatedly is pertaining to the extra curricular activities taken up by the child is also devoid of merit as the children today are inclined to take up activities which are of their interest and same cannot be challenged by the respondent at this stage. Further, the expenses of the child narrated by the complainant are supported by documents and receipts pertaining to payments which are again not exaggerated and infact exist in today's time when the child is studying in a reputed school and is for the welfare of the child. It is also settled law that the well being of the child is the paramount consideration and for the same, the respondent is liable to pay for the maintenance.
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 16 of 17
12. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order by considering carefully the evidence on record and also after taking into consideration the material placed on record by both the parties and has meticulously calculated the aforesaid interim maintenance amount to the complainant. The maintenance awarded by Ld. Trial Court is adequate, not on higher side and has been granted after considering the income affidavits of respondent as well as the complainant and the respondent/ husband is under legal obligation to maintain the minor child and also to give decent living to them by providing basic necessities. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no infirmity in impugned order whereby respondent/ husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- only for the minor child Aditya.
13. In view of the aforesaid appreciation, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has carefully dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties in 'para 24 and 25' of the impugned order and I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.11.2024. Hence, I conclude that Ld. Trial Court had passed the impugned order legally and correctly. It was not perverse in nature and needs no interference. Present Appeal, therefore stands dismissed. Impugned order dated 18.11.2024, passed by Ld. Trial Court stands upheld.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHEETALAnnounced In The SHEETAL
CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY
Open Court Today Date: 2025.04.23
16:03:21 +0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
23.04.2025
CA No. 385/2024 Manjul Joshi Vs. Bhavna Khurana Page no. 17 of 17