Delhi District Court
Taruna Yadav vs Gajender Singh Yadav on 11 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 123/2023
In the matter of:
Taruna Yadav
w/o Shri Gajender Singh Yadav
d/o Late Shri Devender Kumar
r/o H. No. 60, Gali No. 4, Ganga Vihar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110094.
Also at: Jack Compound-II, Ghukna Mod,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
..........Appellant
Vs.
(I) Gajender Singh Yadav (Husband)
s/o Shri Brijpal Yadav
(ii) Brijpal Yadav (Father-in-law)
(iii) Pushpa Devi (Mother-in-law)
w/o Shri Brijpal Yadav
(iv) Deepak (Brother-in-law)
s/o Shri Brijpal Yadav
all r/o H. No. 122, Harbansh Nagar,
Meerut Road, District Ghaziabad, U.P.
Fresh add: E-151, Sec. XVII, Kavi Nagar
Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, U.P-201002.
..........Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.08.2023
Reserved on : 15.05.2024
Announced on : 11.07.2024
JUDGMENT
Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 1 of 11
1. Vide this judgment, the Court shall decide instant Appeal filed by appellant/wife u/s 29 of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'DV Act') against impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 of Ld. Trial Court thereby directing the respondent no.1/husband to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to appellant/wife and two children as maintenance, and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant/wife for her mental trauma.
2. Succinctly stated, it is the case of appellant/wife as narrated in the impugned judgment:
That marriage between Taruna Yadav and Gajender Singh Yadav was solemnized as per Hindu rights and ceremonies on 10.12.2005 at H. No. 60, Gali No. 4, Ganga Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi-110094. Two children namely Prathik and Nitik were born from the said wedlock. Parents of the complainant had spent Rs.4,50,000/- in marriage. They gave motorcycle and other dowry articles consisting of gold and silver jewellery to the respondents. Soon after their wedding, respondent no. 1,2,3 & 4 started taunting the petitioner for not bringing enough dowry and started demanding one Maruti car. Respondents used to abuse and beat the complainant even in the state of fever and sickness. She was kept starved for days by the respondents. She stated that in the year 2008, the father of complainant had died of electrocution and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given by the concerned authorities and respondents started demanding that compensation amount also. They used to say that complainant had six working brothers and also had property in village and tell her not to come home if Rs. 02 lacs is not paid to them alongwith Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 2 of 11 Maruti car. She also stated that on 09.10.2009, respondent no. 2 called her but she could not go as she was feeding her younger son. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 started shouting at and abusing her. Respondent No. 1,2,3 & 4 started beating her with fist and kick blows. Petitioner made a complaint against the respondents regarding the cruelties committed by them upon her, and filed a petition u/s 12 of D.V. Act.
3. Respondents appeared before Ld. Trial Court and file their reply to the application of appellant/wife u/s 12 of D.V. Act. Interim application filed by appellant/wife before Ld. Trial Court u/s 23 D.V. Act was decided and interim maintenance of Rs. 3600/- per month was granted to her. Thereafter, matter was taken up for complainant evidence. In support of her case, complainant examined herself as CW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. She relied upon various documents Ex.CW1/1(OSR) to Ex.CW1/10(OSR) and document Mark'A'. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent/husband. After completion of complainant evidence, respondent examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/1 and relied upon the documents Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/C and documents Mark'X' to Mark'Z-2'. Respondent was also duly cross-examined by the opposite party. After hearing final arguments, Ld. Trial Court decided the matter and inter-alia directed respondent no. 1/husband to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to appellant/wife and two children as maintenance, and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to appellant/wife for her mental trauma.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 3 of 11 appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Notice of the present appeal was issued to respondent no. 1 who appeared in compliance thereof. Reply was filed on behalf of respondent by Ld. Counsel. Copy was supplied to the appellant.
Arguments of both the parties heard.
4. Learned counsel for appellant/wife seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 on the following grounds:
a) that impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures;
b) that Ld. Trial Court committed an error by not assessing the correct income of the respondent no. 1;
c) that Ld. Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the principle laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra' 110(2004) DLT 546 and Ld. Trial Court did not give three shares of the income of respondent no.1 to the appellant as per aforesaid judgment;
d) that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that respondent no. 1 was drawing Rs.30,800/- per month in the year 2018 and it was improbable that he was earing Rs. 20,500/- per month in the year 2023; &
e) that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that the appellant is unemployed and fully dependent upon her family members.
Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 4 of 11
5. Ld. Counsel for appellant/wife reiterated the aforesaid grounds while making submissions before the Court. He vociferously submitted that appellant/wife and the two children were entitled to maintenance more than what was finally decided by Ld. Trial Court. It is the argument that the observation and assessment of Ld. Trial Court regarding the monthly salary of respondent no. 1/husband was faulty and therefore, he sought setting aside of impugned judgment and grant of all the reliefs sought by appellant/wife in her petition u/s 12 D.V. Act.
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1/husband denied all the allegations made by appellant/wife against him in the present appeal as well as in her petition before Ld. Trial Court. He stated that Ld. Trial Court rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case to grant final maintenance to wife and children, and no ground to set aside the same is made out.
7. Submissions heard. Record including Trial Court Record carefully perused.
8. The issue of domestic relationship between appellant/wife and respondent no.1/husband is not disputed by any of the parties. The factum of marriage of the parties on 10.12.2005 is admitted and further, the factum of parties having resided together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home is also not disputed. Further, the birth of two children from the wedlock and the factum of said children residing with appellant/wife is also admitted by both the parties.
Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 5 of 11 In terms of Sec. 2(f) of D.V. Act which defines the term 'Domestic Relationship', since appellant/wife and respondent no.1/husband are legally wedded and have resided together in a shared household, domestic relationship between both of them stands established. Further, no aspect of the domestic relationship between the parties is under dispute in the present matter and therefore, no further discussion on this aspect is called for.
9. Further, the issue of domestic violence has been dealt in detail by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment while discussing the allegations of domestic violence in the affidavit Ex.CW1/A of appellant/wife vis-a-vis her cross- examination. Ld. Trial Court also discussed the affidavit Ex.RW1/A and the cross-examination of respondent no.1/husband in the impugned judgment. A bare perusal of the evidence adduced by both the parties before Ld. Trial Court would suggest that appellant/wife suffered domestic violence at the hands of respondent no.1/husband and his family members. Although there is plain vanilla denial of the allegations of appellant/wife in the affidavit of respondent no.1/husband, none of the denials could be substantially proved on record. None of the members of the family of respondent no.1/husband appeared as a witness before Ld. Trial Court to refute or challenge the allegations of appellant/wife.
As such, there is nothing on record to find fault with the observation of Ld. Trial Court that appellant/wife is a victim of domestic violence and thus, entitled to protection/relief as Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 6 of 11 provided by, and as made out, under the D V Act.
10. Ld. Counsel for appellant/wife emphasised that Ld. Trial Court erred in correctly assessing the monthly salary of respondent no.1/husband and consequently, faulted in grant of appropriate amount of final maintenance to wife and children. To bolster the argument, Ld. Counsel relied upon an order/judgment dated 29.09.2018 of Ld. Family Court, North-East District in case titled 'Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav' wherein Ld. Court while assessing the monthly income of respondent no.1/husband to be Rs.30,800/- granted maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month (Rs.4000/- each) to wife and children. It is argued that it was highly improbable that respondent no.1/husband was earning only a sum of Rs.20,500/- in the year 2023 against a salary of Rs. 30,800/- in the year 2018. It is, thus, submitted that a case to enhance the final maintenance of made out in favour of appellant/wife.
Ld. Counsel further strengthened his argument for grant of enhanced maintenance on the ground that Ld. Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Annurita Vohra (supra). It is stated that the monthly income should have been divided into five shares with three shares to wife and children and Ld. Trial Court granted only two shares in their favour. It is stated that even by that calculation vis-a-vis monthly income of Rs. 20,500/-, the wife and children were entitled to maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month while Ld. Trial Court granted only Rs. 8000/- as maintenance and the same be accordingly modified.
Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 7 of 11
11. This is Court has considered the aforesaid arguments and has also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as referred above as also observation of Ld. Trial Court in this regard. Firstly, respondent no. 1/husband has relied upon his bank statement for the year 2021 to 2023 before Ld. Trial Court wherein the company M/s Ruby Lifting Equipment Company has credited an amount of Rs. 20,500/- in his account on monthly basis without any change over a period of time. Secondly, appellant/wife, at no point of time brought any other document on record controverting the said bank statement of respondent no. 1/husband. While she orally challenged the claim of husband in her affidavit and original petition, no question regarding the claim being false or any increment in the monthly salary over a period of time was put to respondent no. 1/husband during his cross-examination as RW-1. Thirdly, it must be understood that Ld. Trial Court decided the final maintenance on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and not on the basis of a smart guess work. Ld. Trial Court was bound to consider the evidence and not the bald averments of the parties.
12. As regards the argument for interpretation of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is observed that while Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that 'a satisfactory approached would be to divide the Family resource Cake in two portions to the husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to the other members', it granted a maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 8 of 11 the wife and children despite observing that they would ordinarily be entitled to approximately to Rs. 18,000/- out of the disposable income of Rs. 32,000/- per month.
In the present case, it is undisputed that appellant/wife is residing in the matrimonial home while respondent no. 1/husband is residing in a rented accommodation. It is also undisputed that the husband is also paying some miscellaneous expenses like the electricity bill. In such circumstances, the approach of Ld. Trial Court not granting maintenance 'strictly' as per five parts of the family cake, is justified and reasonable. Ld. Trial Court has carefully factored in the aforesaid circumstances while granting the amount of final maintenance.
13. At this stage, it would also be relevant to reiterate that Ld. Family Court has already granted a maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- per month to appellant/wife and her children, and respondent no. 1/husband is regularly paying the same. Ld. Trial Court also considered this aspect while deciding the final maintenance in the present matter under D V Act.
It would also be apposite to quote the observation of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Mamta Bhardwaj vs. Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj' (dated 29.10.2021) wherein it was observed that that 'the Supreme Court in 'Rajnesh vs. Neha' while approving the judgments of High Court of Bombay in 'Vishal vs. Aparna', 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1207 and Delhi High Court in 'R.D. vs. B.D' 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9526, has observed in the light of question of overlapping jurisdiction for Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 9 of 11 grant of maintenance that Sec. 20(1)(d) of the DV Act makes it clear that the maintenance granted under the DV Act would be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) and any other law for the time being in force. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the legislative mandate envisages grant of maintenance to wife under various statutes. There is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.PC or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The only obligation imposed on the wife would be to disclose the earlier maintenance being granted to her in the previously instituted proceedings so that the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceedings could be fixed taking into account the maintenance already awarded in favour of the wife in any previously instituted proceedings.
In the light of aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is noted that Ld. Trial Court is completely justified to decide the quantum of maintenance in subsequent proceedings (D V Act proceedings in the present facts) while taking into account the maintenance already awarded in favour of the wife in any previously instituted proceedings (before Family Court). In these circumstances, the approach of Ld. Trial Court granting final maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month to wife and children while considering the previous maintenance of Rs. 12000/- per month granted by Ld. Family Court, cannot be find fault with. In the light of above discussion, the arguments of Ld. Counsel for appellant/wife are misconceived and therefore, cannot be considered.
Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 10 of 11
14. It is pleaded in the appeal that Ld. Trial Court did not grant any other relief to appellant/wife despite specific prayer in the petition u/s 12 D V Act. In the opinion of this Court, such a pleading appears to have been made without careful reading of the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 of Ld. Trial Court. It is observed that Ld. Trial Court has granted 'protection order' u/s 18 of DV Act, 'residence order' u/s 19 of DV Act and 'compensation of Rs. 50000/-' u/s 22 of DV Act in favour of appellant/wife in the impugned judgment besides grant of final maintenance to wife and children. The pleading in the appeal is, thus, misconceived.
15. The impugned judgment is certainly passed after considering status of the parties and their respective liabilities in life. The judgment is well-reasoned and there is no justified ground to set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 of Ld. Trial Court which is based on correct understanding of the law and the facts and circumstances of the case. Present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, and judgment dated 26.06.2023 is sustained.
13. File of present Appeal be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Dictated & announced in the open Court on 11.07.2024.
(ARVIND BANSAL) Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Taruna Yadav vs. Gajender Singh Yadav Page 11 of 11