Delhi District Court
Nitin Sharma vs Ruchi Sharma on 28 October, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET PAHWA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2025
CNR No. DLNE01-002271-2025
SH. NITIN SHARMA
S/o. Sh. Ramesh Sharma
R/o. H. No. C-45,
Gali No.1, Panchal Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
.......... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ruchi Sharma @ Ruchika
W/o. Sh. Nitin Sharma
(D/o. Late Sh. Brijpal Sharma)
R/o. H. No. B-163, Gali No. 9,
Phase-10, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094
.........Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal : 06.08.2025
Date of Completion of Arguments : 10.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal u/s. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is directed against the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the court of Ms. Neha Barupal, Ld. JMFC (Mahila Court-01), North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CT Case No. 510/2024 U/s. 12/23 of the Protection of Women from Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:18 +0530 2 Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to as the DV Act).
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the respondent (in her complaint under the DV Act) are that the marriage of the complainant/respondent herein was solemnized with appellant according to Hindu rites and customs on 09.02.2019. After the marriage, when complainant came to her matrimonial house, the appellant herein took care of her for few days, but, thereafter the appellant and his family members started taunting, abusing and quarrelling with the complainant (respondent herein) for bringing less dowry. Appellant used to beat the complainant (respondent herein) everyday and tried to strangulate her for dowry on the instance of his family members. Appellant also used to comment that he would give divorce to complainant and remarry with another girl. Therefore, the complainant (respondent herein) was harassed physically and mentally by the appellant and his family members and many times, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, after being beaten.
3. It was further alleged that from the said wedlock, the complainant was blessed with a baby child namely Urvi on 01.09.2022, but, appellant and his family member were not happy after seeing the child. Thereafter, they started harassing the complainant physically and mentally even Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:20 +0530 3 more. It was also alleged that in the month of June 2023, appellant and his family members had thrown out the complainant alongwith her minor daughter after beating her mercilessly and thereafter, the complainant shifted to her parental house. On 26.10.2023, complainant lodged a written complaint to ACP CAW Cell, Nand Nagri Delhi against the appellant and his family members. .
4. It was further alleged that the complainant had no source of income and was fully dependent upon her brother. However, the appellant was doing a job at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month and he was also getting Rs.10,000/- from the rent and he has no other dependent except petitioner and minor daughter. Therefore, the complainant had filed an application/petition u/s. 12/18/19/20/22/23 of D.V. Act against the appellant herein.
5. Vide detailed order dated 03.07.2025, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dispose of the application u/s. 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the respondent herein with directions to appellant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to the petitioner (respondent herein) and her minor daughter in her custody from the date of filing of present petition till they are legally entitled to receive the same or till disposal of the present case, whichever is Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:13 +0530 4 earlier.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 03.07.2025, the appellant herein filed the present appeal.
7. The notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent and on completion of service of notice, the respondent had appeared with her counsel.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the Ld. Trial Court.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.07.2025, passed by Ld. Trial Court, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dispose of the application u/s. 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the respondent herein with directions to appellant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to the petitioner (respondent herein) and her minor daughter.
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned order is against the settled principles of law and without proper application of mind, based on surmises and conjectures and decided the interim application U/s 23 PWDV Act, while granting a monthly maintenance to the respondent and her minor child as interim maintenance on dated 03.07.2025 and submitted that the Ld. Trial Court Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:17 +0530 5 did not consider the salary certificate filed by the appellant and while rejecting the said salary certificate, Ld. Trial Court opined that salary certificate issued by the said Proprietor was undated and does not mention the period when the appellant herein worked in the said proprietorship firm.
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that two salary certificates were filed by the appellant. On one salary certificate, the date was mentioned as 01.01.2024 whereas, the other salary certificate was undated by mistake, but both the originals of salary certificates were issued on 01.01.2024 but due to human error, the date could not be put on the salary certificate which was filed before the Ld. Trial Court and also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that amount of Rs.9,500/- per month as salary was being paid to the appellant in cash and the Ld. Trial Court opined in its order dated 03.07.2025 that the appellant had not given any explanation to the effect that why he was earning less than minimum wages payable to a graduate in Delhi? Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court formed the opinion that the appellant was deliberately hiding his true income and the Ld. Trial Court, while deciding the interim maintenance, completely ignored the fact that the respondent was also equally graduate and her earning also should have been Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:15 +0530 6 assessed as her income @ Rs.24,356/- per month because the law of assessing the income of the spouses is the same. Infact, she is gainfully employed as she is working in online marketing as MLM (Multi Level Marketing) and earning an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month hence she can very well maintain herself as well as her child.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the respondent herein has left the matrimonial home on 22.07.2023 by calling her brother without any reasonable grounds and living in adultery and also submitted that while arriving to the conclusion of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance, the Ld. Trial Court was totally wrong as such the Ld. Trial Court divided the total salary of a graduate person into six equal parts and out of that two parts for appellant herein and each one of the part to minor daughter, wife and parents while referring a Judgment titled as Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra (2004 (74) DRJ, 99). However, the reasoning of Ld. Trial Court is against the spirit of the said judgment and if the half portion out of total salary is considered for the minor child then also the maintenance comes to about Rs.6,000/- per month and not Rs.8,000/- per month as decided by the Ld. Trial Court. As such on the facts and circumstances mentioned herein, the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside and Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date:
PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:15 +0530 7 prayed that the same may be set aside.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 03.07.2025, after considering all the facts and circumstances in a very judicious manner. Ld. Counsel has denied the contents of the appeal, being wrong, false and frivolous and submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the said impugned order and also submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant is false, frivolous and baseless and prayed for dismissing the present appeal filed by the appellant.
14. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
15. Perusal of the record shows that the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the impugned order dated 03.07.2025, whereby, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dispose of the application u/s. 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the petitioner/respondent herein with directions to respondent no.1 (appellant herein) to pay Rs.8,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to the petitioner (respondent herein) and her minor daughter.
16. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is reproduced Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:14 +0530 8 herein below:-
"In view of the principle laid down, the cumulative income of parties shall be divided in six parts, with two parts for respondent no.1, one part for the petitioner and one part for the minor daughter in the custody of the petitioner and one part each for respondent No. 1's parents. As per the principle, each part is approximately Rs. 4059/- per month, from the cumulative income of parties. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to direct respondent no.1 to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner and her minor daughter in her custody from the date of filing of present petition till they are legally entitled to receive the same or till disposal of the present case, whichever is earlier. The above said interim maintenance shall be towards food, rent for alternate accommodation, clothing, education, household and other necessary expenses, all inclusive. Payment towards maintenance (including ad-interim maintenance) received by petitioner in this case or in any other case shall stand adjusted.
Let the monthly maintenance be paid on or before 10th of each month, starting from next month. Arrears of maintenance as accrued be cleared within six months from today.
Nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to an expression on opinion on the merits of the case.
The present application stands disposed of."
17. It is now well settled that the PWDV Act is a civil law remedy available in a criminal court. The proceedings are predominantly civil in nature, because the reliefs provided under Sec. 18 to 23 (protection order, residence Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:16 +0530 9 order, monetary relief, custody, compensation, etc.) are all civil remedies. However, the provisions of the Act are enforced through the criminal courts and breach of a protection order is made a criminal offence u/s. 31 of the Act.
18. It is well settled that the object of granting maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, IX (2007) SLT 592-I (2008) DMC 22 (SC)=IV (2007) CCR 408 (SC)=(2008) 2 SCC 316, has observed as under:
"6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70:
1978 SCC (Cri) 508: AIR 1978 SC 1807] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:20 +0530 10 deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636: 2005 SCC (Cri) 787: (2005) 2 Supreme 503].
In an illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [(1975) 2 SCC 386: 1975 SCC (Cri) 563: AIR 1975 SC 83], it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."
19. It is trite law that a husband cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, III (2015) DLT (CRL.) 371 (SC)=III (2015) SLT 703=(2015) 5 SCC 705, observed as under:
"14..... It can never be forgotten that the inherent and Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:19 +0530 11 fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the hold of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay. for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right."
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Anju Garg & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar III (2022) DMC 406 (SC)=VIII Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:16 +0530 12 (2022) SLT 30=2022 SCC Online SC 1314, served as under:
"10.... The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute....
x-x-x
13. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child...."
21. The above observations were though made while deciding the issue of granting maintenance u/s.125 CrPC, but, the same very well applies in cases for grant of maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act also, as the object behind both the provisions is same i.e. to prevent vagrancy and to ensure decent standard of living for the deserted wife.
22. Section 23(1) of the DV Act provides that the Magistrate may pass interim and ex parte orders as he deems just and proper. Section 23(2) of the DV Act Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:20 +0530 13 provides that if the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses domestic violence, he may grant ex parte (without hearing the other side) interim orders, including monetary relief. Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act provides that the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person, including maintenance for herself and her children. Thus, interim maintenance can be granted under Sections 20 read with 23 of the DV Act.
23. The purpose of providing Interim Maintenance is to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved woman so that she can sustain herself during the pendency of proceedings. It ensures that economic abuse (as defined under Section 3 of the Act) does not continue. The order on Interim Maintenance should ensure a reasonable standard of living similar to that enjoyed by the aggrieved person in the matrimonial home. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated in number of cases that interim maintenance is necessary to safeguard the dignity and livelihood of the wife during litigation.
24. It is now well settled that husband's obligation exists irrespective of actual earnings. Even if a husband is unemployed or earning little, he cannot evade his legal and moral duty to maintain his wife. An able-bodied man is Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:18 +0530 14 presumed capable of earning to support his wife and children.
25. In case, Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and capable of earning, he cannot avoid his obligation merely because he is not actually employed or is earning little."
26. In case, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"The husband is duty bound to enable his wife to live with dignity and not in penury. The plea of unemployment or low income is not a sufficient ground to deny maintenance."
27. At the time of deciding an application for interim maintenance, the Courts assess the husband's qualifications, previous occupation, lifestyle, and capacity to earn. If the husband has chosen not to work, courts may treat it as "voluntary underemployment" and impute an income to him. Although, the wife's earning capacity or independent income is also relevant but, it does not automatically disentitle her to maintenance.
28. In the present case, the appellant has taken the plea that he is presently having very less and no stable source of income. However, this contention cannot be accepted as Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:17 +0530 15 a valid defence to deny interim maintenance to the aggrieved person. It is well settled that an able-bodied man is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife and children. A husband cannot shirk his responsibility on the pretext of unemployment or financial hardship. The law presumes that an able-bodied man possesses the capacity to earn sufficient livelihood by honest means.
29. The appellant is an educated and able-bodied person, and no material has been placed on record to show that he is incapable of earning. He is expected to make reasonable efforts to support his wife and children. Therefore, considering his qualifications, past standard of living, and the reasonable needs of the aggrieved person. Ld. Trial Court assessed his monthly earning capacity at ₹24,356/- (as per the minimum wages for graduate as applicable in the State of NCT of Delhi) and directed payment of interim maintenance accordingly.
30. So far as the said income certificate is concerned, the same does not inspire much confidence and it has been rightly rejected by the Ld. Trial Court. Mere cursory look at the bank statements of the appellant filed before the Ld. Trial Court shows that the monthly expenses of the appellant were much more than Rs.25000/-. Therefore, it seems that the said income certificate has been filed by the appellant just to evade his moral as well as legal duty to Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:19 +0530 16 maintain his deserted wife and minor child.
31. The appellant has pleaded that his monthly income is very meagre and insufficient to maintain even himself and his parents. However, the plea of low income cannot be used to absolve him entirely from his statutory duty to maintain his wife. Maintenance is meant to prevent destitution and ensure a life of dignity, not luxury. Interim Maintenance amount of Rs.8000/- per month to sustain the respondent and her minor child is quite reasonable and justified.
32. The Court is conscious of the respondent's limited means but equally mindful of the aggrieved person's right to basic sustenance. The expression 'means' does not signify only visible means such as real property or definite employment. If a man is able-bodied, he is in a position to earn.
33. In view of the above discussion, this court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order under appeal, which may require any interference therein. Therefore, the impugned order under appeal passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merit.
34. The record of the Ld. Trial court is ordered to be returned with the attested copy of this judgment.
Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:14 +0530 17
35. Appeal file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 28th day of October, 2025.
(PUNEET PAHWA) Special Judge (NDPS)Addl. Sessions Judge/ North East District/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 122/2025 Nitin Sharma Vs. Ruchi Sharma Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.10.28 14:42:17 +0530