Delhi District Court
Rohin Paul vs Sapna Paul on 7 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 60/2017
PS Sriniwas Puri
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Sh. Rohin Paul
S/o Late Sh. Krishen Dev Paul
R/o H. No. 9/1, Nehru Enclave East,
Kalkaji Extn., Delhi
.... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sapna Paul
W/o Sh. Rohin Paul
R/o H. No. C-113A, Kalkaji
Delhi
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.02.2017
Date of Final Arguments : 31.05.2025
Date of Decision : 07.07.2025
Decision : Appeal dismissed order of
Ld. Trial Court stand
upheld.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 1 of 69
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal U/Sec. 29 of the Protection Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act') against the order dated 16.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CC No.458/2009 PS titled as "Sapna Paul Vs. Rohin Paul" .
2. Vide aforesaid impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has directed the appellant/ husband herein to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards the maintenance which includes the provision for alternate accommodation and any other ancillary expenses as well as compensation U/s 22 of DV Act for the mental and physical injury suffered by respondent at the hands of appellant and this amount also includes litigation cost. Further the complainant was granted compensation amount of Rs.5 Lakhs u/s 22 of PWDV Act.
3. Thereafter, respondent/husband feeling aggrieved filed Criminal Appeal No.60/2017 before my Ld. Predecessor and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 01.11.2019 and the order of the Ld. Trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court to retry the case. Subsequently, the complainant/wife filed the revision petition before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi for seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.11.2019. Vide order dated 19.01.2024 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had set aside the order dated 01.11.2019 CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 2 of 69 and with observation in para no.39 to 43 as below "39. That the complaint was filed in the year 2009 and almost 14 years have elapsed and the Wife has not been granted any interim maintenance other than the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the Husband pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Accordingly, even though I am remanding the matter to the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits, it is deemed appropriate that an amount of interim maintenance is fixed by this Court pending the adjudication of the appeal on merits.
40. On the basis of the income tax returns of the Husband on record from the financial year 2009-10 to financial year 2019-20, the income of the Husband can be summarized below:
Assessment Year Financial Year Gross Total Net Total Income/ Income/ Year Year 2010-2011 2009-2010 20,24,477 15,69,715 2011-2012 2010-2011 29,84,847 22,32,323 2012-2013 2011-2012 46,22,830 33,65,441 2013-2014 2012-2013 47,96,823 35,16,503 2014-2015 2013-2014 46,74,527 34,08,123 2015-2016 2014-2015 48,45,021 35,80,586 2016-2017 2015-2016 42,71,315 31,73,612 2017-2018 2016-2017 25,02,030 19,54,206 2018-2019 2017-2018 15,14,385 12,52,800 2019-2020 2018-2019 15,14,873 12,65,168 2020-2021 2019-2020 14,57,086 12,26,338 Financial Year Gross Average Rs.24,13,200 2009-2020 Rs.32,00,929 per year Income Per month Gross Average Net Average Rs.2,66,744 Rs.2,01,100 CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 3 of 69
41. As per the table above, taking into account the net total income of the Husband from the financial year 2009-10 to 2019-20, on an average, the Husband would have earned approximately a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. As per the income tax returns of the Wife on record, her earnings after the financial year of 2009- 2010 seem to be significantly lower than that of the husband.
42. Keeping in view the income of the parties and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumar, (1970) 3 SCC 129, which was reaffirmed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200, I am of the view that it would be just and proper that twenty-five percent of the net income of the Husband be granted to the Wife as interim maintenance. Accordingly, it is directed that the Husband shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-per month to the Wife as interim maintenance from 16th December, 2009, when the complaint under the DV Act was filed till 1 November, 2019, when the impugned judgment was passed by the Appellate Court. The sum of Rs.10,00,000/- already paid by the Husband to the Wife pursuant to the orders of this Court shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 4 of 69
43. While disposing of the present revision petition, the following directions are passed:
(i) The arrears of interim maintenance calculated on the basis above will be paid to the Wife by the Husband over a period of six months in six equal monthly instalments, beginning from 1 March, 2024.
(ii) Any payment made to the Wife in terms of the above shall be subject to the final judgment that may be passed by the Appellate Court fixing the final maintenance.
(iii) The Appellate Court shall decide the quantum of maintenance in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra).
(iv) Taking into account the long period that has elapsed since filing of the complaint, the Appellate Court shall decide the present appeal within a period of one year from today.
(v) The Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on the basis of the material before it. However, the parties shall be at the liberty to lead additional evidence before the Appellate Court in view of any change in circumstances after the financial year 2019-2020."
4. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present matter was received by the undersigned upon the direction of Hon'ble Principal CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 5 of 69 District & Sessions Judge and the file was taken up on 10.12.2024 and therefore, the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. Appellant herein is the respondent/husband and respondent herein is the complainant/ wife before Ld. Trial Court. In order to avoid any confusion, both the parties shall be referred with the same nomenclature with which they were referred before the Ld. Trial Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
6. As per record of Ld. Trial Court, the brief facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, are as follows that the marriage between the parties were solemnized on 10.02.1991. The parents of the complainant at the time of marriage had given dowry articles, jewellery and cash to the respondent (husband) and his relatives which included Rs.21,000/- cash plus gold chain beside other articles of house hold. The respondent took away all the jewellery belonging to the complainant on the pretext of safe custody and assured to handover the same when she required . After the marriage the behaviour of the respondent was extremely aggressive towards the complainant and the complainant came to know that the respondent was having illicit relations with several other women. In May, 1991, the complainant became pregnant, however, the respondent was unhappy and ill-treated the complainant during her pregnancy. In December, 1991, complainant was blessed with a baby boy but even then the respondent was unhappy and did not take care of the complainant while she was in hospital. During the year 1997-2000, she came to know that the financial condition of the respondent had CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 6 of 69 deteriorated as he was of habitual drinker and the respondent stopped taking care of the complainant. During the year 2000-2003, respondent stopped supporting the complainant and the minor child and did not contribute to the expenses of the house. In May, 2004 complainant started working as she had responsibility to look after the household expenses as well of the minor child. The behaviour of the respondent towards the complainant as well as the minor child were extremely aggressive and therefore she started living separately. Even while complainant lived separately she was continuously harassed and ill- treated by the accused. Complainant became jobless in January, 2008 but the respondent refused to support the complainant and the minor child. From February, 2008 to June, 2009 the complainant was working in a company in Pune and looking after the minor child and subsequently shifted back to Delhi in August, 2009. During the aforesaid time also the respondent misbehaved with complainant and on several occasion had ill-treated her by giving beating. From September, 2009 to December, 2009 complainant was again ill -treated by the respondent as he threatened to kill the complainant and the minor son. In November, 2009 complainant filed her complaint with CAW Cell and subsequently, filed her complaint under DV Act in December, 2009.
BRIEF HISTORY OF CASE BEFORE TRIAL COURT
7. The complaint U/s 12 of the PWDV Act was filed by complainant before the Ld. Trial Court on 18.12.2009 and the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 7 of 69 respondent were summoned. Respondent appeared on 06.02.2010 and thereafter, WS was filed. However, respondent stopped appearing before the Ld. Trial Court and was proceeded ex parte on 29.11.2010 and matter was listed for evidence of the complainant. However, an application was moved on behalf of respondent on 24.03.2011 for setting aside the ex parte order and the same was set aside on 27.05.2011 and respondent undertook to bear all the educational expenses of the minor child and the matter was listed for cross examination of the complainant. Complainant examined herself as CW1 on 03.06.2013 and relied upon documents Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/C i.e. the marriage certificate, list of dowry articles and photographs of marriage and her evidence by way of affidavit was Ex.CW1/1. Meanwhile, the parties explored settlement and the matter was settled between the parties on 25.09.2014 before Mediation Center. However, subsequently, respondent did not comply with the aforesaid settlement and stopped appearing before the Ld. Trial Court and right to cross examine CW1 was closed on 08.10.2015 and respondent was again given opportunity to file list of witnesses and lead respondent evidence. However, respondent again failed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court and therefore, respondent evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments. Subsequently complainant moved application for leading additional evidence and the same was allowed and CW2 was examined. Ex Parte final arguments were heard by Ld. Trial Court and impugned judgment dated 16.11.2016 was passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 8 of 69 GROUNDS OF APPEAL
8. Ld. Counsel for appellant has taken following grounds challenging the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2016. I. That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the judgment without applying its judicious mind and the material available on record. The present judgment has been passed in a very routine and mechanical manner and without appreciating the question of law that whether the petition of the respondent is maintainable or not? II. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the well established principal of Law settled by Honorable High Court of Delhi in the matter, Crl M.C No. 3878/2009 title as VIJAY VERMA VS. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR passed by Honorable Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra on 13 August 2010.
III. That the Ld. Trial court did not consider that the respondent is living separately, separate household is established and that the respondent is a highly qualified professional and having experience organizations and the respondent has sufficient sources of Income. IV. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the settlement arrived at the Mediation Centre, Saket, New Delhi on 25.09.2014, written statement filed on behalf of appellant and that complainant has been living separately from her husband and the present complaint has been filed in 2009 after 10 years from the date of separation. V. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the respondent has admitted this fact in her petition that she is living separately from her husband i.e. appellant herein and the present complaint has been filed in 2009 after 10 years from the date of separation.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 9 of 69 VI. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that prior to the date of separation, the respondent and the appellant have filed petition for divorce with mutual consent twice before the then HMA Court Tis Hazari, Delhi with Mutual Consent twice, second one being filed in January 2007. That after separation in the year 2001 and till passage of 9 years the respondent had not filed a single complaint against the appellant and accordingly the same is time barred and it is not maintainable.
VII. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that for the non- maintainability of the case of the respondent, there is a judgment on the same cited as "2014 ALLMR (Crl) 636 & MANU/ MH/2439/2013"
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay tilted as "Sejal Dharmesh Ved Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors." decided on 07.03.2013, wherein the case is similar to the Hon'ble Court considered that "the wife had admitted that she has resided separately from her husband since year 11.02.2009 but she filed the case of 12 D.V. Act on 18.01.2010 and the Hon'ble Court considered that domestic relationship comes to an end when the physical relationship comes to an end" and a part of that the Hon'ble Court also considered in para no.4 that " Such application is required to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the D.V. Act for the reliefs under the Act".
VIII. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the petition of the respondent is barred on the time limitation as per section 468 Cr.P.C. which allows maximum three years time to file any complaint from the date of the incident and accordingly this petition has been filed after a CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 10 of 69 nine years of separation where both parties have been living in separate homes without any justification and reasons of delay. IX. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that in a judgment cited as "(2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 394" passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as "Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandera Sekhar Mahanty"
decided on 27.07.2007, wherein the Hon'ble Court has clearly define the Section 468 Cr.P.C. that the complaint shall be filed within one year from the date of incident. That as per the above mentioned judgments and the brief facts of the case it clearly reveals that the present case is barred from the time limitation and does not lie against the appellant as the same is not showing any cause of action against the appellant. X. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the appellant is living separately, so that no domestic relationship exists between the appellant and the respondent and the order obtained by the Respondent by concealing true facts and status of the parties and by playing a calculated fraud to unjustly enrich herself, as such the same is non-est and not liable to be sustained.
XI. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that most essential fact was concealed by the Respondent from the court was that she had moved out of the house of appellant and shifted to her own residence and subsequently setup an independent Domestic home for her self, has lived in her self-owned property in Kalkaji, New Delhi where she shifted in 2001 itself. That the Appellant is not complying with the terms of settlement dated 24.09.2014 when no Court Notice either to the counsel or party was issued by the Ld. Court after 2014 to verify the fact, nor any such statement on oath was made by the Complainant CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 11 of 69 before the Court, as per the record of Trial Court obtained. XII. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that there has been complete misrepresentation of facts and documents by the Respondent and the Ld. Court has wrongly observed in para 16 that in financial year 2013-2014, the company had a profit of Rs. 169.29 Lakhs, whereas the profit was actually Rs. 53.23 Lakhs. XIII. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that there is no evidence on record to show the standard of living of Respondent, neither any positive evidence to prove that the Appellant provided such standard of living to the Respondent which entailed costs of Rs.1.5 Lakhs per person of the family, as it has also come on record that the Respondent was earning Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- per month, and over and above that she has been granted Rs. 1 lakh per month for herself. Thus the total expenditure of per person of the family has been fixed at Rs 1,50,000/- per month from 2009 till today which is untenable and unacceptable and beyond the capacity to pay for the Appellant. XIV. That the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that there is no proof on record that from 2009 to 2016, the appellant all along had a yearly income of Rs.50 - Rs.60 Lakhs, as presumed by the Ld. Court for the year 2013-2014because on that premise alone the Ld. Court has granted Rs.1 Lakh per month maintenance from 2009 onwards. That the expenses of the only child of the parties for the education and other major expenses were borne exclusively by the appellant father as undertaken by him.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 12 of 69
9. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent before the trial court, respondent has refuted the allegations of the complainant and admitted the marriage between the parties and the child born from the wedlock. He denied to have received any dowry articles as the marriage between the parties was a love marriage. Further, the respondent denied to have ill-treated or harassed the complainant during the marriage between the parties. Further, that the complainant out of her own will lived separately from the respondent for 9 years and thereafter, falsely filed the complaint in CAW Cell in November, 2009 after 19 years of her marriage only with intention to falsely implicate the respondent. It is further argued that he had not committed any domestic violence upon the complainant.
10. In compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.01.2024, both the parties filed their income affidavit in compliance of the guidelines led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajnesh Vs. Neha".
11. During arguments before the present court an application u/s 91 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the respondent for directions to the appellant to produce financial documents in terms of judgment of Rajneesh Vs. Neha and subsequently reply of aforesaid application alongwith statement of account was filed on behalf of appellant. Meanwhile, an application U/s 91 Cr.P.C. was also moved on behalf of appellant on the same ground and Ld. Counsel for respondent did not file any written response but argued the application and submissions CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 13 of 69 were recorded in the proceeding dated 09.04.2025 in the presence of counsel for appellant.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT (COMPLAINANT/WIFE)
12. It has been argued on behalf of respondent/wife that the parties got married on 10.02.1991. One son, Uday Paul, was born out of the wedlock on 28.12.1991. Owing to the mental and physical atrocities meted out by the Appellant, the Respondent was compelled to file a DV Complaint (CC 458/3/09) on 18.12.2009. The Appellant had entered appearance therein and filed his pleadings (Written Statement, Reply and documents), however he chose neither to cross examine the Respondent nor led his own evidence and even did not advance final oral or written arguments before the Ld. DV Court, that too despite availing several opportunities and after getting his earlier ex-parte order set aside vide Order dated 27.05.2011. Subsequently, the impugned judgment was passed by the Ld. Trial Court on 16.11.2016, and the Ld. Trial Court Court allowed the Domestic Violence Complaint and inter- alia directed the Appellant to pay the Respondent, maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. from date of filing (18.12.2009 onwards), maintenance increase (@ 10% every 3rd year from date of Order (16.11.2016), and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, inclusive of litigation cost. The Hon'ble High Court had fixed the interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m. without any detailed inquiry or assessment to ascertain the true income of the husband or to authenticate the veracity of his ITRs, but by prima facie taking into account only the admitted CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 14 of 69 and disclosed income of the Appellant husband as disclosed by him in his ITRs. It has been argued that the complainant/respondent had been subjected to domestic violence at the hands of respondent from the beginning of her marriage and the same had been proved by her before the Ld. Trial Court and the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court /impugned judgment dated 16.11.2016 does not required any interference and is correctly passed. It has also been argued that the divorce granted by the Ld. Family Court in HMA 308/2018 and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in MAT APP 38/2021 would not have an impact on the present proceedings. It has been argued that while remanding the present matter, the Hon'ble High Court has categorically dealt with the said issue in its Judgement dated 19.01.2024 in Para 5 and in Paras 24 and 25 of the Judgment dated 19.01.2024, it has been held that the findings of cruelty against the Wife in the divorce proceedings cannot be the basis to deny maintenance to the Wife under the provisions of the DV Act. Thus, the Judgment in the HMA 38/2021 would have no bearing on the present proceedings and the said issue stands settled and cannot be re-adjudicated at this stage. It has also been argued that the respondent is having stable income and has huge financial resources and is drawing a Net Salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. as Director in Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd. Further, the respondent has Income from Other sources of Rs. 6,63,006/- p.a. and also has 75% share in the Property being 9/1 Kalkaji Extension, new Delhi-110019. Further respondent is also having 9,97% Shareholding in the M/s Showtime Events India Pvt Ltd. Further, he is a Director in M/s SFX Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and is also having 20% CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 15 of 69 shareholding in the said company. Thereby entitling him to corresponding profit share in both companies. That the actual financial position of the Appellant, as revealed from his own documents, and after taking into account his concealments, brought out from the documents filed, are of such grave nature that it tantamount to criminal perjury. It has also been argued that the Appellant has concealed his Salary received in his capacity as a Director in M/s Showtime Events (India) Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly in the FY 2014-15, the Appellant was earning Rs. 45,75,600/- as Salary (refer Pg. 35 of Additional Evidence dated 20.05.2016 filed by Respondent before the L.d. DV Court, which forms part of the TCR), being Rs. 3,81,300/-(approx.) per month. The Appellant has attempted to mislead this Hon'ble Court by filing self- serving Salary Certificates prepared by his CA to show diminished Salary. Since the Appellant has failed to file the latest financial documents of his companies, it is impossible to believe that his Salary has decreased over time. That the Appellant has concealed and deliberately not filed the latest Profit and Loss Accounts and Balance Sheets of his 2 admitted companies. The Profits earned by M/s Showtime Events (India) Pvt. Ltd., in FY 2014-15 was Rs. 50,83,298/-. That by virtue of his admitted ownership of 9.97% in M/s Showtime Events (India) Pvt. Ltd, the Appellant admittedly earned Rs. 5,06,805/- (approx.) as his share of profit until the FY 2014-15, and the current income therefrom has been concealed, therefore warranting adverse inference against the Appellant. That by a conservative estimate of 7.5% increment in the profit year-on-year, his share of profit in FY 2024-25 would not be less than Rs. 10,44,541/-, equivalent to Rs. CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 16 of 69 87,045/- (approx.) p.m. That the Profits earned by M/s SFX Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in the FY 2017-18 was Rs. 57,81,466/-, which must have increased with efflux of time, more evidently when the Appellant deliberately failed to file the P&L accounts and Balance sheets before this Hon'ble Court in clear violation of the mandate of 'Rajnesh v. Neha' and Order dated 18.01.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court. It has also been argued that by virtue of his admitted ownership of 20% in M/s SFX Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant admittedly earned Rs. 11,56,293/- (approx.) as his share of profit until the FY 2017-18, and the current income therefrom has been concealed, therefore warranting adverse inference against the Appellant. By a conservative estimate of 7.5% increment in profit year-on-year, his share of profit in FY 2024-25 would not be less than Rs. 19,18,346/-, equivalent to Rs. 1,59,862/- (approx.) p.m. That the Appellant has concealed his involvement in Gemini Enterprises and has refused to place on record any document to show his role and earnings from the said firm. However, his bank statements reflect huge amount of money being credited into his accounts from the said firm. He has received Rs.15,50,000/- in his Axis Account in June-July, 2023. Further, in the same period, he has also received Rs. 15,50,000/- in his South Indian Bank Account. In addition to the above, he has received Rs.1,33,91,943/- in his HDFC Account from December, 2021 till March, 2024. It has been argued that the appellant therefore, in the last 3 financial years has received Rs. 1,64,91,943/-cumulatively from Gemini Enterprises (his undisclosed business). On average his earnings from Gemini Enterprises alone is CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 17 of 69 Rs. 4,58,109/- (approx.) p.m. That the Appellant has also concealed his Income from Other Sources and Investments, returns on which are credited into his South Indian Bank Account. In the last 3 financial years, the Appellant has received Rs. 1,14,06,183/- from his investments in various sources such as Sushil Fin Serv Pvt. Ltd., DLF Ltd., NHPC Ltd. etc. Therefore, on average his Income from other Sources is Rs. 3,16,838/- (approx.) p.m. That the Appellant has concealed his Recurring Deposit Accounts in his Financial Affidavit. Further, in his Reply to the Section 91 CrPC Application, he has admitted to these Accounts but has vaguely stated them to be closed, without providing any proof. That the Appellant has refused to provide details of his monthly expenses in his Financial Affidavit. However, in his Reply to Section 91 CrPC Application, he has admitted that his monthly expenses are taken care of by his Company M/s Show Time Events by way of reimbursements, thus no personal expenses are to be incurred by him unlike the Respondent. That, in view of above his current average income from all sources, inclusive of his admitted salary, is not less than Rs. 11,21,854/- (approx.) per month. Therefore, the standard of living and income of the Appellant is far greater than what was portrayed by him before the Ld. DV Court, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and also this Hon'ble Court. Having falsified on oath to conceal his actual income, he has committed the offence of criminal perjury. thereby warranting adverse inference to be drawn against him. It has been argued that the complainant/respondent is thus entitled to grant of maintenance commensurate to atleast 1/3rd share of the aforesaid documented income of the Appellant, amounting to approx. CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 18 of 69 Rs. 3.75 Lacs p.m.
13. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/wife has relied upon the judgments in support of her arguments.
14. In the case of "Radhika Narang & Ors. Vs. Karun Raj Narang & Anr." ILR 2009 III Delhi 542 wherein para 25, 26 & 27 it has been held that :-
"25. In accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case of Komalam Amma (supra) and also in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Mal (supra) and Maharani Kesarkunverba (supra), we are also of the view that the Appellant wife certainly cannot be put in a position where she and her children are suddenly deprived of the lifestyle and comfort they were used to merely because of the separation from the husband. The payment of maintenance to an estranged spouse provides means for sustenance so as to ensure that so far as possible, the same living standards, obtaining prior to the breakup of spouses, are retained. Even the interim maintenance order, in the present case took about 3 years to be pronounced, aided in no small measure by the repeated filing of various applications by Respondent No. 1, his father and his mother. The wife claiming interim maintenance can therefore not be CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 19 of 69 put to a severely disadvantaged position of a drastic reduction in the quality of her life on the premise that she would get the appropriate maintenance at the final award of maintenance/alimony. The existence and survival of an estranged wife seeking interim maintenance cannot be treated akin to a suit for rendition of accounts on recovery of money, where at the final hearing of the suit accounts can be adjusted and parties re-compensated by costs and interest. A human life is far more precious than a ledger, particularly when lives of children living with the wife are also involved. It would be no solace to the wife to be given adequate maintenance three years later, as about six valuable years of her life and formative years of her children would have passed then under a stage of deprivation of the appropriate lifestyle. We have taken the time span of six years after taking into account the period of 3 years occasioned by a spate of interim applications mostly by the Respondent and his father which led to a three year delay in the award of interim maintenance.
26. Thus, after considering the above position of law, it is evident that the following principles emerge from the above judgments:
a. Maintenance depends upon the summation of all the facts of the situation as laid down in Dr. Kulbhushan CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 20 of 69 Kunwar v. Raj Kumari MANU/SC/0349/1970: [1971]2SCR672.
b. For granting maintenance, the scale and mode of living, the age, habits, wants and class of the life of the parties has to be regarded as laid down in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari (supra). c. Maintenance being such that the wife could live in a reasonable comfort; considering her status and mode of life which she was used to while living with her husband as laid down in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors. MANU/SC/0835/1997: AIR1997SC3397.
d. During the pendency of the suit for maintenance, which may take a considerable time to attain finality, the wife cannot be forced to face starvation till she is subsequently granted maintenance from the date of the filing of the suit as laid down in Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder Malhotra and Ors. MANU/DE/0505/1993: AIR1994Delhi234.
e. Maintenance must necessarily encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. as laid down in Komalam Amma v. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Ors. SLP (C) No. 3670/2005 decided on 14th November, 2008. f. Maintenance, necessarily must encompass a provision CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 21 of 69 for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. [as laid down in Mangat Mal v. Punni Devi MANU/SC/0040/1996: AIR1996SC172. g. Maintenance must vary according to the position and status of a person. It does not only mean food and raiment. as laid down in Maharani Kesarkunverba v. I.T. Commissioner MANU/SC/0149/1960:[1960]391TR283 (SC)
27. The purpose of providing maintenance, in our view, is thus meant to secure to a wife/spouse claiming maintenance, as far as possible, the status and facilities enjoyed by her prior to her separation from her husband when her maintenance claim is finally determined. The determination of maintenance not being governed by any rigid or inflexible rule gives wide power and discretion to the Court to do justice.
15. Further, in "Rattan Bala Singh Vs. Meena" & Ors. 2002 SCC online Delhi 114 wherein para no.5 & 6 it has been held that:-
5. Keeping in view the above principle as also the provisions of Section 24 which is int he form of a beneficial legislation and requires the court to come to CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 22 of 69 the rescue of a spouse who has no independent income of his or hers and should not feel handicapped of subsistence and effective defense of the matrimonial proceedings. The words "has no independent income sufficient for her or his support" used in Section 24 of the Act are quite significant and bring out the mind of legislation that while considering the question of granting or refusing maintenance pendente lite, the Court is to restrict the enquiry as to the source of independent income of the applicant and the income of any other person viz. children etc is not to be taken into account. In the case in hand, the trial court has erred in declining the maintenance pendente lite to the applicant-wife merely on the ground that she is not a destitute and is being supported by the son who is a qualified Chartered Accountant, though the husband was not able to establish that the applicant-wife was having any regular income.
Merely because she has a training in accounts work and has worked earlier with some concerns where she is no longer employed and she might get some amounts towards back wages is not sufficient to hold that the wife has sufficient independent income to maintain herself. The contention of the husband that the income of the wife is much more than his, is not borne out from the record. The husband admittedly is an able bodied person having experience in different spheres and he must be having CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 23 of 69 enough income which can be safely assessed between Rs. 2000-3000/- pm. He is otherwise under a legal and moral obligation to maintain the wife. This Court is, Therefore, of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if the respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 750/- per month to the applicant-wife besides the litigation expenses of Rs. 2500/- as awarded by the learned trial court.
6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order date 19th September 1996 is set aside and the respondent-husband is hereby directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the applicant-wife @ Rs. 750/- per month w.e.f. from the date of the application. The arrears of past maintenance are allowed to be paid in Installments @ Rs. 250/- per month Along with the current maintenance @ Rs. 750/- p.m. No order as to costs.
16. Further, in "Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain" AIR 2017 SC 1640 wherein para no.15 it has been held that:-
" 15. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 24 of 69 necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife's parents is also immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court."
17. Further, in "Rajnesh Vs. Neha" AIR 2021" SC 56 wherein in para no.66 it has been held that:-
"66. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash.
MANU/DE/0028/1968: AIR 1968 Delhi 174 The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 25 of 69 husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court."
18. Further, in "Sudhir Diwan Vs. Tripta Diwan" & Anr. 2008 147 DLT 756 wherein para no.9, 11 & 17 it has been held that:-
"9. I need not note any other authority to bring home the legal preposition that where a party does not truthfully disclose its income an element of conjuncture and guess work has to inevitably enter in the decision making process.......
11. The aforesaid statement of affairs makes interesting reading. For the year 1.4.2002-31.3.2003 petitioner has paid LIC premium in sum of Rs. 74,522.60/-. In the next year nothing has been shown as paid towards LIC premium but thereafter for the year 1.4.2004-31.3.2005 LIC premium has been paid in sum of Rs. 83,378/-............
17. Under the circumstances a presumptive finding that the net annual income of the petitioner is around Rs. 4 lacs per annum would not be an incorrect finding."
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
19. On the other hand it is argued on behalf of appellant that an ex parte order dated 16.11.2016 was passed by the Ld. Trial Court against the Appellant in the Complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act filed on CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 26 of 69 16.12.2009, against which was the present Appeal was preferred, wherein the Ld. Predecessor ASJ Court had set aside the Order of Ld. MM on 01.11.2019. A Crl. Rev P. 224/2021 was preferred by the Complainant (wife) before the Hon'ble High Court, resulting in passing of the Judgment dated 19.01.2024, awarding maintenance to the wife and remanding back the matter to this Hon'ble Court with directions passed in Para 43 of the judgment. Attention is drawn to Para 43(ii) and 43(v) of the said Judgment, which are reproduced herein for easy reference: "(ii) Any payment made to the Wife in terms of the above shall be subject to the final judgment that may be passed by the Appellate Court fixing the final maintenance." "(v) The Appellate Court shall decide the appeal on the basis of the material before it. However, the parties shall be at the liberty to lead additional evidence before the Appellate Court in view of any change in circumstances after the financial year 2019-2020."
20. It is further argued that the Hon'ble High Court while awarding maintenance to wife from 2009-2019 relied upon the Income Tax Returns of the Appellant from 2009 to 2019-20 and in para 41 awarded 25% of the said average income and held that the Appeal be decided finally in view of change of any circumstances, after the Financial Year of 2019-2020. The most important change the Hon'ble Court has to appreciate is that the parties to the present appeal got Divorced on 10.12.2020. The Divorce Petition was filed by the husband on the ground of Cruelty and Desertion in the year 2018, which was allowed by the Family Court and the Mat Appeal (FC) 38/2021 preferred by the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 27 of 69 Complainant against the said Order was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 18.12.2023. It is submitted, that IF the Complainant is entitled to any maintenance from the Appellant, that can only be with respect to the period relatable to the Domestic Relationship, which is defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Appellant has relied during the course of submissions, the Judgment of "Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi (2022) 8 SCC 90" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that in the event of a divorce, marriage would no longer be subsisting, but if a woman (wife) is subject to any domestic violence either during marriage or even subsequent to a divorce decree being passed "but relatable to the period of domestic relationship, the provisions of this DV Act would come to the rescue of such a divorced woman also". The Bombay High Court relying upon the judgment of the said Supreme Court Judgment in a recent judgment " Sanjay Bapurao Aarewar Vs Smt. Sangita Sanjay Aarewar 2024 SCC Online Bom 3656", allowed the enhancement of the maintenance to the wife as the same was related to the period before the divorce of the parties. Thus, the ratio of both the judgments that the Complainant can maintain a DV Complaint after end of Domestic Relationship, but the relief can only be relatable to the period of Domestic relationship with the husband or his relatives. Therefore, the Appellant is not liable to maintain the Respondent after the date of Divorce i.e. 10.12.2020 till infinity as they are not in Domestic Relationship and the Respondent is not an Aggrieved Person.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 28 of 69
21. It is further argued that the income from any source is reflected in the Income Tax Return of the Appellant. Secondly, in " Rajnesh vs Neha &Anr." (2021) 2 SCC 324. the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the criteria for determining the quantum of Maintenance (in Clause III, Page 371) wherein it was laid down that the objective of granting maintenance is to ensure that the Dependent Spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy. The factors to be considered are the status of the parties and reasonable needs of the wife and also whether applicant is educated and professionally qualified and whether she has any independent source of income. It is submitted that the Appellant herein, could have been made to pay maintenance to his estranged wife / now ex-wife only out of his running income and not from his life long investments and savings, considering the parties only lived together only for 10 years, in rented accommodations between 1991 till 2001 i.e. when the Complainant deserted the Appellant and left the rented accommodation to go and live in her own house. That the only income (reflected in Form 26AS) that Appellant has had in life was from Showtime Events (India) Pvt. Ltd. presently in his Honorary capacity (reference is made to 2015 Certificate and also the SFX Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Certificate). That reference is also made to the reply to the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent that was allowed on 03.08.2019, wherein in response to the Application the Appellant had filed documents pertaining to SFX Entertainment stating that he has no source of income from this company. The argument that Appellant has any Income from SFX Entertainment is presently in his Honorary Capacity CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 29 of 69 which was contradicted by the Respondent before Hon'ble High Court which was rejected. The Hon'ble High Court has relied upon only by the Income Tax Returns of the Appellant, which reflect the Total Income of the Appellant.
22. It is further argued that there has been no income from the firm Gemini and it was closed on 31.03.2024 and consequently the PAN Card of the firm was also returned to the Income Tax Department vide letter dated 16.08.2024, hardcopy of which was taken on record on 31.05.2025 during the course of proceedings. It is submitted that the investment in the said firm are proceeds from liquidation of shares of the Appellant, which was transferred from his personal account to firm's account and the same are reflecting in the Statement of Account and these monies put from personal account to do business was returned back to personal account before closure of Firm.
23. It is further argued that the Appellant who is now more than 66 years old, a heart patient having suffered 3 heart attacks, living alone, is not legally liable to maintain Respondent (his divorced wife), who is Professionally Qualified, Not Dependent, living in her own house consisting of basement plus Three Storied, also getting rental income, is definitely not living in vagrancy and also getting monies from the son (who is now 35 years old) who lives with her as per Bank Statement which have been filed for the first time in these proceedings.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 30 of 69
24. It is further argued that in the Income Affidavit dated 01.03.2024 of Appellant it was already stated that he had always financed for the upkeep of his son. It is submitted that the Appellant is currently retired from the Company and is not involved in any official work of Showtime Events (India) Pvt. Ltd. and SFX Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The extract of the Resolution passed at the Board Meeting of Showtime Events held on 01.06.2015 is on record at Page 42 of application, for placing on record additional documents, which reflects the resolution of the Board stating that the Appellant would be on the Board of the Company in an advisory capacity and his remuneration would be Rs.1.50,000/-per month net of taxes and perks already being provided till May 2016. It was further resolved that post July 2016 the remuneration of Appellant would be revised to Rs.1,00,000/- per month, which during the Covid Period i.e. 2020-2021 was halved and Appellant was getting Rs.58,582/- per month from March 2020. In 2021 the Appellant was paid Rs.59,096/- per month, in the year 2021. From 2022 onwards the Appellant is being paid Rs.1 lakh per month. As for SFX Entertainment, a certificate dated 28.01.2021 is on record at page 43 of application for placing on record additional documents, certifying that the Appellant is not associated in the daily running of the Company in any capacity and does not receive any remuneration from the entity. The above two documents were a part of record before the Hon'ble High Court in the Crl Rev Petition No.224/2021, which were not objected to by the Respondent.
25. It is further argued that post the judgment dated 19.01.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent has deliberately not filed her CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 31 of 69 Income Affidavit in the present proceedings, though that is the first requirement as per the dicta of Judgment in " Rajnesh vs Neha & Anr.". Even this Predecessor Court in its Order dated 01.11.2019 had noted that Respondent had not filed the Income Affidavit before the Ld. MM. On the other hand, the record of Annual Returns of the Company Showtime Events where Appellant was working was summoned without issuing notice to Appellant. on an Application by the Respondent before the Ld. MM. on the basis of which the profits of the Company was assumed and presumed as Income of the Appellant and consequently Order dated 16.12.2016 was passed against the Appellant.
26. It is argued that respondent is an educated woman and the Bank Statement of Respondent shows that she has capacity and capability of earning. It is argued that in Response dated 08.07.2024 to application dated 01.03.2024 for filing additional documents of Appellant, in para 4, the Respondent states that her CV is fabricated and also denied that she is a highly qualified professional. There is no categorical statement in any of Respondent's pleadings that she has worked in multinational companies like HCL, Convergys, Infosys, Guthy Renker, etc. nor there is any denial. That is to say, there has never been any clear, cogent disclosure by the Complainant, as to which MNCs she has worked in her long career. It is only through the Bank Statements filed now in present proceedings in terms of Order dated 09.04.2025, that it has been established that she had source of income from Convergys, reflecting more than Rs.1 Lakh per month salary. Besides Convergys multiple entries from Nishant Dhar, Golak Bihari Khandual, fee CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 32 of 69 payments, reimbursements, closure proceeds, invoice payments, etc. are being reflected.
27. It is further argued that the Income Tax Returns are part of record filed along with List of Document annexed with the Application dated 20.03.2024, to file additional documents on record. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that the complainant/wife has not come to Court with clean hands, as she is living in a house of her own in South Delhi, Kalka ji and she is living with the son who is an Art Director and is earning well today. It is submitted that the Domestic Relationship of the parties ended on 10.12.2020 and as such in view of the submissions made above, the complainant/wife is not entitled to any maintenance, beyond the said period of end of Domestic Relationship.
28. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon several judgment in support of his arguments.
29. Ld. Counsel stated that in the case of in CRL. REV. P. 273/2023 dated 19.03.2025 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein para no.36, 37 & 44 it has been held that:
"36. With regard to the above, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, observed that the capacity to earn and deliberately remaining unemployed are relevant factors in determining maintenance claims. Relevant paragraph of the same is as under: "7. Inability to maintain herself CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 33 of 69 is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance."
37. Further, the Division Bench of this Court, in Gurpreet Dhariwal v. Amit Jain, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1066, also noted that where a wife is competent and an educated woman with various employment options available to her, interim maintenance can be declined, particularly if she has not disclosed complete facts in her income affidavit. Relevant portion of the same is as under: "23. Trite it is to observe that it is no answer to deny the claim of maintenance to the wife who is educated and can support herself as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2017) 15 SCC 801 Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain.
However, the facts in hand are distinguishable since it is not shown that she is not having means to financially support herself. Not only is she much more qualified CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 34 of 69 than the respondent but she has even been working even if intermittently as is borne out from her documents and also from submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The impugned Order of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, does not suffer from any infirmity in denying the interim maintenance to the appellant..................
44. Furthermore, it has been rightly observed by the learned Principal Judge that while the petitioner claims that she cannot sit idle and is trying to search for a job, she has not placed any evidence on record regarding her efforts to secure employment or resume her business activities either before the Court below or before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the mere assertion of job-seeking, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to establish genuine efforts at self sufficiency"
30. Ld. Counsel further relied upon in judgment in case of Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta MAT App. (FC) 143/2014 Delhi High Court dated 05.09.2016 wherein para no.10 it has been held that "Admittedly the appellant/wife is a qualified Chartered Accountant and working in that capacity since the year 2003. When the appellant/wife is a qualified Chartered Accountant and practicing since the year 2003, after putting in 13 years in profession she cannot be expected CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 35 of 69 to earn only 27,000/- per month which is below the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker."
31. She further relied upon the judgment in the case of Damanreep Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja 2012 4 JCC 2375 dated 14.05.2012 High Court of Delhi where in para no.8 it has been held that
8. In Smt.Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with identical situation observed that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. For better appreciation, relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced hereunder:-
"In view of this, the question arises, as to in what way Section 24 of the Act has to be interpreted. Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? Whether such spouse should be permitted to get pendent lite alimony at higher rate from other spouse in such condition? According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose. In the present case Mamta Jaiswal is a well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc. M.C M.Ed. Till 1994 she was serving in CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 36 of 69 Gulamnabi Azad Education College. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient experience. How such a lady can remain without service? It really put a big question which is to be answered by Mamta Jaiswal with sufficient cogent and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support herself. A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a „dole‟ to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a ‟dole‟ to be awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The law does not help indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he would be reaping the money in the nature of pendent lite alimony, and would prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for any activity to support and maintain himself or herself. That cannot be treated to be aim, goal of Section 24. It is indirectly against healthiness of the society. It has enacted CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 37 of 69 for needy persons who in spite of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to support and maintain themselves and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned income by toiling working hours.
In the present case, wife Mamta Jaiswal, has been awarded Rs.800/- per month as pendent lite alimony and has been awarded the relief of being reimbursed from husband whenever she makes up a trip to Indore from Pusad, Distt. Yeotmal for attending Matrimonial Court for date of hearing. She is well qualified woman once upon time obviously serving as lecturer in Education College. How she can be equated with a gullible woman of village? Needless to point out that a woman who is educated herself with Master‟s degree in Science, Masters Degree in Education, would not feel herself alone in travelling from Pusad to Indore, when at least a bus service is available as mode of transport. The submission made on behalf of Mamta, the wife, is not palatable and digestible. This smells of oblique intention of putting extra financial burden on the husband. Such attempts are to be discouraged."
32. She further relied upon the judgment in the case of Sanjay Bapurao Aarewar Vs. Sau. Sangita Sanjay Aarewar 2024 SCC online Bombay 3656 wherein para no.6 to 9 it has been held that:-
6. According to the learned Counsel for Applicant/husband, once the decree of divorce is granted, and that too, at the instance of Non-applicant/wife, she is not entitled for any relief under PWDV Act, as there was no domestic relationship in existence between the parties. Thus, the only CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 38 of 69 question which needs consideration in the present Application is that, whether a divorcee is entitled for reliefs under PWDV Act for want of existence of domestic relationship. The learned Counsel for Applicant/husband heavily relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Sadhana v. Hemant (cited supra), wherein following observation is made:
"In the presence case, divorce was granted by the family Court vide order dated 30th June, 2008. Application under DV Act was filed in the year 2009. At the time of filing of application under the D.V. Act, the applicant was not the wife. There was no domestic relationship between them. Hence, orders passed by the learned JMFC, Nagpur and maintained by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2015 are perfectly legal and correct. There is no perversity or legality in the impugned orders."
7. Under the aforesaid observation, it is evident that once the divorce is granted, then there cannot be any domestic relationship between the husband and wife, and therefore, wife is not entitled for maintenance under the provisions of PWDV Act. However, the learned Counsel for Respondent heavily relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi v.
Kamlesh Devi (cited supra) and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with particular issue CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 39 of 69 involved in this matter and answered the same in favour of the Non-applicant/wife.
8. Admittedly, in the case of Sadhana v. Hemant (cited supra), this Court was of the opinion that after passing sing the decree of divorce the wife is not entitled to the reliefs claimed under the PWDV Act including the relief of grant of maintenance. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi (supra) has referred all the earlier Judgments on this aspect and analyzed the word 'domestic relationship', as noted in PWDV Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court, specially in the case of 'divorce', has commented in respect of 'domestic relationship' in paragraph No. 43 (b) (il) as under:
"(ii) In the event of a divorce, marriage would be no longer be subsisting, but if a woman (wife) is subjected to any domestic violence either during marriage or even subsequent to a divorce decree being passed but relatable to the period of domestic relationship, the provisions of this D.V. Act would come to the rescue of such a divorced woman also."
9. On going through the aforesaid observation, it is evident that even a divorcee is entitled to claim relief under PWDV Act, If it is related to the period of domestic relationship with the husband and his Felatives. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment has framed three vital questions CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 40 of 69 involved in that case, which can be stated as under:
"(i) Whether the consideration of Domestic Incidence Report is mandatory before initiating the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in order to invoke substantive provisions of Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the said Act ?
(ii) Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levied at the point of commission of violence ?
(iii) Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed ?"
33. In addition to the above grounds, Ld. Counsel for appellant/ husband has argued that the factum of utmost significance was not considered by Ld. Trial Court that the appellant was never given opportunity to cross examine the complainant, while passing the Impugned Judgment and the same was passed without due application of judicial mind and without adverting, referring and perusing the material. Further, the Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the complainant failed to file the Income Affidavit. Hence, the Impugned Order merits to be severed and set aside. It has been further argued that Appellant has time and again made a sincere effort to settle the matter with the complainant and even during the trial had taking care of the financial needs of the minor child and paid for the education of the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 41 of 69 child. However, no effective hearing on the same has taken place to date. It has been further argued that Ld. Trial Court did not consider the aspect that the complainant had been living separately from the appellant/husband for almost 9 years before filing of her complaint.
34. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court, is legally correct and needs no interference and has been passed after considering the records of this case. It has been argued that present complaint under the DV Act was filed by the complainant on 18.12.2009 and upon summoning the appellant/husband had appeared before Ld. Trial Court and Rs.5,000/- vide order dated 19.04.2010 was granted to the complainant as pocket expenses for the child. However, subsequently, respondent stopped appearing before Ld. Trial Court and was proceeded ex parte and due to his non appearance the impugned judgment was passed by the Ld. Trial Court and the case of the complainant remained unchallanged and unrebutted on the part of the appellant. It has also been argued that the appellant did not abide by the mediation settlement and delayed the proceeding in the present matter. It has also been argued that from the income affidavit of the appellant, it is clear that he is earning a huge amount and has purposely shirked his responsibility of maintaining the complainant. It has been argued that from the income of appellant and the documents annexed with it, it can be seen that he is even currently having income of Rs.3.5 Lakhs per month, but has not placed details of the same and has not come to court with clean hands and therefore, present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 42 of 69 COURT OBSERVATIONS
35. I have heard arguments advanced by respondent/husband and Ld. Counsel for complainant/ wife and carefully perused the record including Trial Court Record.
36. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or her relatives for demand of dowry, it is an offence u/sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety. It was therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevalent the occurrence of the domestic violence in the society. Keeping these objects and reasons in mind to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman guaranteed under Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto, the Bill was presented and the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was passed by the Parliament. Thus, it cannot be lost sight of, that the Act has been passed keeping in view the provision under the Constitution and to provide a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from domestic violence in the society. We may also see that where an alternative constructions are possible, the court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 43 of 69 the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than the one which would put hindrances in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility.
37. The Act inter-alia provides for more effective protection or the right of woman guaranteed under the constitution who are victims of the domestic violence of any kind occurring within the shared household. According to the Act, any harm, injury to health, safety, life, limb or well being or any other act or threatening or coercion etc. by any adult member of the family, constitutes domestic violence. Further, the act also contemplates that any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship, if she is subjected to any domestic violence can file a complaint u/sec. 12 of the PWDV Act. This Act also covers those woman who are or have been in relationship with the abuser where both parties have live together in a shared household and a relative by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, the relationship with the family members living together as a joint family are also included. Even those women are sisters, widows, mothers or single woman or living with the abuse, are entitled to legal protection.
38. Before considering respective contentions of parties, I may mention here that while awarding maintenance, the Court has to examine the respective claims of the parties regarding their respective CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 44 of 69 incomes and assets. It is also pertinent to note here that as per the dictionary meaning of the word 'maintenance', it includes all such means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort, suitable and becoming to his/ her situation of life. It is said to have include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expenses or other proper cognate purposes.
39. For computing the maintenance, the following test have been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 7, wherein it has been observed that: "No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of parties, their respective needs, the capacity of husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for wife or children should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
40. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 45 of 69 9503/2018, dated 04.11.2020 has held as under :-
Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance :-
The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a nonworking wife.
41. Besides that, the court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or her child or his support, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and dependent family members including his own child, whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiraling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any such CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 46 of 69 source of income through which, he could maintain her wife, ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife or his child if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
42. At the outset, I may observe that the parties are at idem regarding factum of marriage between them. The paternity of the child is also not in dispute. The complainant has alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence at the hands of respondent/ husband. However, same has been denied by the respondent. The date of separation between the parties is stated to be May, 2004 and the same is not disputed.
43. In the present matter, the appellant/husband had filed his written statement and had stated that the allegations against him were false and fabricated and that the complainant/wife had filed the petition with the intention to harass and torture the appellant/husband and with the intention to extort money from him. It has also been stated that the marriage between both the parties was a love marriage and that respondent had never committed any acts of violence against the complainant/wife. It has also been stated that since November, 2001, it was the complainant who wanted to live separately and that the complainant/wife had different sources of income and being well educated had worked at several places and was having stable income. Further, that the appellant/husband had pay all the expenses of the education of the child when he was shifted from a school in Delhi to Kodaikanal and then to Pune by the complainant/wife and even the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 47 of 69 hostel expenses at Pune. It has also been averred that the appellant/husband had always maintained the complainant and the minor child as he even had a medi-claim policy for all three of them till the year 2008 and the maintenance claimed by the complainant/wife is exorbitant and baseless.
PLEAS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT
44. Firstly, I shall deal with various pleas as taken by appellant/husband while assailing the impugned order.
MAINTAINABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT AND ASPECT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
45. One of the ground on which respondents seeks setting aside of impugned order is that the respondent/wife had been living separately from the appellant/husband since the year 2004 and she had filed the present complaint before the Ld. Trial Court only in December, 2009. It has also been argued that since the respondent/wife have been living separately, the complaint filed U/s 12 PWDV Act is not maintainable and that the complainant was required to file her complaint within a reasonable time. It has also been argued that the domestic relationship between the appellant/husband and the complainant/wife did not exists for almost 6-7 years as the complainant/wife had been residing separately from the appellant/husband and that she had even filed application for seeking divorce from the appellant/husband. Further, as per section 468 Cr.P.C. the complainant/wife was required to file her CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 48 of 69 complaint within three years of her separation and there was no justification and reason for the delay and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and that the complainant/wife is not an "aggrieved person" as per Section 2(a) of the PWDV Act. Further that the complainant/wife had been residing in a separate accommodation, there was no shared household or common kitchen, and therefore, there was no domestic violence committed by the appellant/husband, and therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
46. The aforesaid arguments on behalf of the appellant/husband are not tenable and are devoid of merit. The complainant in the present matter filed her complaint before the Ld. Trial Court and has categorically mentioned several incidents wherein the appellant had committed domestic violence upon her. Complainant has mentioned the exact date and year when she was subjected to cruelty by the appellant being her husband. She has stated that soon after her marriage the appellant misbehaved with her and ill-treated her while they were living together and on several occasions had even given beatings to her. As per the Domestic Violence Act, the burden of proof generally lies with the complainant (the woman) to establish the allegation of domestic violence. The standard of proof is based on the "preponderance of probabilities" which is a lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt" required in criminal cases. Evidence can include witness testimonies, medical reports, and other documentation. Proceedings under PWDV Act are considered civil in nature but can CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 49 of 69 have criminal procedure aspects. The domestic violence is rampant and several women encounter violence in some form or the other or almost everyday. Domestic violence is defined as any conduct that is delivered in a habitual nature and encompass various forms of assaults which make the life of the aggrieved miserable and may constitute physical, verbal, mental, sexual, emotional or economic abuse at the hands of the respondent/husband. The physical abuse may include criminal intimidation, criminal force, beating, kicking, punching, throwing objects, damaging property, abusing or even acts which are dangerous to the well being of the wife/aggrieved person and also may culminate into abandoning the aggrieved person or forcing the aggrieved person to leave the shared household. Further, the aforesaid nature of domestic violence shall cause emotional and mental harassment to the aggrieved person and cannot be accounted by the complainant by examining witnesses as the aforesaid abuse is in the nature, that the complainant /wife had undergone while she was cohabiting with the respondent/husband and is personal to her. The complainant/ wife herein has categorically also mentioned the manner in which the appellant/ husband ill treated her in daily life. It is only due to the behaviour of the respondent that the complainant/ wife having no option left the company of the respondent and the same amounted to cruelty upon her. It has been also mentioned by the complainant that the appellant/ husband had stopped paying for the household expenses and for the education expenses of the child and therefore she had taken up a job and worked to meet the expenses at that time. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant had paid for the alternate CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 50 of 69 accommodation to the complainant/ wife or had supported her financially. The appellant in his Written Statement has not even whispered the financial support given by him to the complainant/ wife or the minor child when they were living separately but has vaguely stated that he was looking after the educational expenses towards the child. The aforesaid behaviour of the appellant constitutes domestic violence as defined u/sec. 3 of the PWDV Act. The emotional mental, economic and physical abuse caused to the complainant /wife has been specifically mentioned by her in her complaint, before the Ld. Trial Court and the same was not rebutted by the appellant/husband by leading any cogent evidence or placing on record any financial documents. The appellant herein even stopped appearing before the Ld. Trial Court and was proceeded ex parte. Therefore, in my considered view the aspect of domestic violence stands proved by the complainant as none of the contentions and allegations raised by the complainant were rebutted by the respondent.
47. The Ld. Trial Court rightfully concluded vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2016 regarding the aspect of domestic violence while taking into consideration the complaint filed by the complainant and the same has been discussed in the impugned judgment of the Ld. Trial Court in para 13. As far as the contention of the appellant regarding the maintainability of the complaint is concerned the law pertaining to the same is discussed below. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan" CA No.627/2022 wherein it has been held that:-
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 51 of 69 "20. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence".
48. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also follow in the case of "Mudasir Ahmad Dar Vs. Mst. Mashwooka & Anr." CM No.160/2024 Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh in para no.8 it has been held that "8. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the petition under Section 12 of D.V.Act filed by respondent No.1 is barred by time is concerned, the same is also without any substance. This question has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kamatchi case (supra) and it has been held that it is not necessary that application under Section 12 of the Act ought to be filed within a period of one year when the alleged acts of domestic violence have taken place. The contention of the petitioner is therefore without any substance".
49. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 52 of 69 Supreme court and Hon'ble High Court it is not required that the domestic violence complaint is required to be filed within one year of the domestic relationship and the same may be filed till the relationship between the parties exists.
50. The contention raised on behalf of appellant that the provision U/s 468 Cr.P.C. mandate the maximum period for taking cognizance of an offence to be three years is also not tenable. There is no specific time limit to file a complaint under the PWDV Act as the act considers domestic violence as a continue offense, allowing complaints to be filed at any time as long as the relationship exists. The right to file a complaint is not lost due to the passage of time. The limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. does not apply to application filed U/s 12 of DV Act as the same cannot be equated with criminal complaint or the initiation of criminal prosecution and therefore, is not subject to the time restrictions outlined in section 468 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid contention of the appellant is discarded in view of the case laws discussed above as in the case of Kamatchi (supra).
COMPLAINANT IS WELL QUALIFIED AND CAPABLE OF EARNING
51. The other ground taken by the appellant/husband is that complainant is a well qualified woman and is capable of earning and has always been employed and had a stable income which the complainant/wife has been concealing. Further, that the appellant/wife CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 53 of 69 does not have an income as portrayed by the complainant/wife, only with the intention to extract money from the appellant/husband. Further it has been argued that the complainant/wife failed to prove any evidence to substantiate her claims of seeking maintenance of Rs.1.5 Lakh per month from the appellant/husband and that the appellant/husband does not have the capacity to pay aforesaid maintenance to the complainant/wife. It has also been argued that the maintenance amount granted vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2016 of Rs.1 Lakh is unjustified and beyond the capacity of appellant/husband.
52. Even if, for the sake of deciding the present appeal, it is believed that complainant is well qualified or is capable of working somewhere and can maintain herself, then also this issue is no more 'res integra' in view of settled position of law. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr (Supra) has held as under :-
(c) Where wife is earning some income. The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.
53. In the present matter, it claimed by the appellant/husband that the complainant/wife was earning, and the same was sufficient for herself and the minor child when the complaint was filed by her, however, the appellant has failed to substantiate the aforesaid averments by placing CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 54 of 69 on record any cogent evidence to show that the complainant was ever employed in the past in the nature that she could have taken care of all her financial needs including the minor child. In fact the financial capacity of the complainant was much less as compared to the appellant. Appellant for the reasons best known to him did not file any financial document before the Ld. Trial Court to show his incapacity to maintain the complainant/wife or support her financially and made only bald averments without any cogent proof. During the arguments before the present court both the parties had filed their income affidavits in view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court and the same also shows that it is the appellant who is financially sound as compared to complainant who has led all her life without any financial support from the respondent and by taking care of her day to day needs as well as the needs of the child of the parties and raising the child alone.
54. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Lavlesh Shukla v Rukmani, Crl. Rev. No. 851/2019, has 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. Besides, paying tuition fee, stationary etc. there are other requirements for daily needs of complainant and her child.
55. Further, in order to determine the quantum of maintenance CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 55 of 69 payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B - III of the judgment Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr. (supra). The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
56. In my considered view, the submissions of the respondent/ husband with regard to his income cannot be accepted in the absence of cogent proof to that effect. It has to be borne in mind that the petition under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was tried with full opportunities given to both sides resulting in impugned judgment. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family or the child, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash.
57. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. Further, the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance to her wife or child, stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
58. Under Section 12 of DV Act, an aggrieved person can approach CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 56 of 69 the Magistrate seeking one or more of the reliefs under the DV Act. Under section 20 DV Act, the magistrate has powers to direct husband 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 inter alia include the maintenance for aggrieved person as well as her children.
59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case law titled as Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129, has held, which as under :-
"12. Section 125 Cr.P.C. stipulates that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves, shall be obligated to do so. A moral duty and a statutory obligation is cast upon the husband to maintain his wife, minor children, parents who otherwise are not capable of maintaining themselves.
60. Therefore, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant/husband also stands discarded.
MAINTENANCE TO THE CHILD
61. Another ground on which the impugned order has been challanged by the appellant/husband is that it was the appellant who had been paying for the expenses of the child between the parties including the education expenses and all other major expenses as it was the appellant who had undertaken the same before the Ld. Trial Court in the submissions made on 27.05.2011.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 57 of 69
62. In the present matter, it is not disputed by the appellant/husband that the minor child between the parties always remained in the custody of the complainant/wife. It is also admitted by the appellant/husband that the minor child had attended school in Delhi /Kodaikanal and Pune and all the time the child was in custody and care of the complainant/wife. It is further observed that before the trial court none of the parties had filed their income affidavits and only an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the appellant/husband to the complainant as pocket expenses and subsequently, it was appellant/husband who undertook to pay for the education expenses of the minor child. It is also to be seen that the minor child between the parties has been residing with the complainant and it cannot be lost sight that the complainant being mother on her own alone, has been looking after the minor child since the separation and despite nurturing the child alone, she had taken up employment as and when she could work and looked after herself and the minor child. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant/wife that when the complaint under PWDV Act was filed by the complainant, the child between the parties was aged around 18 years and was studying in school and the education of the child had not completed and was completed only in the year 2015-16. It has also been argued that the child between the parties throughout remained in the care and custody of the complainant/wife and apart from the educational expenses there were several other day to day expenses of the minor child which were borne by the complainant/wife and nothing was contributed by the appellant/husband. It has also been argued that CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 58 of 69 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 19.01.2024 has categorically mentioned in para 30 to 32 that the expenses towards the child till he was studying should also be taken in to consideration and be granted. It has further been argued that the complainant/wife had worked only till December, 2009 and left her job as she had to look after her house and their son single handedly. Further, the aforesaid ground is devoid of merit and therefore, is discarded and dismissed.
DIVORCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 10.12.2020
63. Apart from the grounds mentioned in the appeal file, during the course of arguments appellant/husband had contended that since the parties have been divorced on 10.12.2020, the complainant/wife is not entitled to any maintenance after 10.12.2020 as the domestic relationship between the parties had ended on 10.12.2020. It has been argued on behalf of appellant/husband that if at all the complainant/wife is entitled for maintenance, that can only be in respect to the period relatable to the domestic relationship as defined U/s 2(f) of the DV Act and has relied upon the judgment in the case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi 2022 (8) SCC 90 in this regard wherein it has been held that " in the event of a divorce, marriage, would no longer be subsisting, but if a woman is subjected to any domestic violence either during marriage, or even subsequent to a divorce decree being passed but relatable to the period of domestic relationship, the provisions of DV Act would come to rescue of such a divorced woman also". It has been argued that since no domestic violence was committed upon the complainant/wife, and she has CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 59 of 69 already been divorced on 10.12.2020, she is not entitled to maintenance. On the aforesaid aspect it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant/wife that the aforesaid contention is not tenable as the same has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 19.01.2024 in para no.24 wherein it has been held that the finding of cruelty against the wife in the divorce proceeding by itself cannot be the basis to deny maintenance to the wife under the provisions of the DV Act. Therefore, the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant/husband is devoid of merit and hence, discarded.
FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE APPELLANT/HUSBAND
64. During the course of arguments another contention raised on behalf of appellant/husband apart from the grounds of the appeal is that the appellant/husband being 66 years of age and having several ailments does not have the financial status or income to provide maintenance to the complainant. The aforesaid fact has also been disputed by the Ld. Counsel for complainant/wife stating that the financial documents filed on behalf of appellant/husband clearly shows that he is having a stable income of more than Rs.3 Lakh per month, even today, and huge amount of money transactions are taking place in different bank accounts of the appellant/husband and the contention raised on behalf of appellant/husband is made only to harass the complainant, and therefore, the appellant/husband is not in the capacity to maintain the complainant/wife and moreso, the son of the parties is currently aged around 35 years, and therefore, the complainant is not required even to take care of the son between the parties. CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 60 of 69 CONCLUSION
65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the case of the complainant/wife stands proved and that the appellant/husband had committed domestic violence upon the complainant/wife. The different pleas taken by the appellant/husband herein have been discussed above and have been discarded by the undersigned. Further, in the present matter, the aforesaid pleas raised by the appellant/husband herein were required to be established during trial. The appellant/husband had the proper opportunities to prove the aforesaid claims by leading evidence or by cross-examining complainant by putting on record school fees receipts, tuition fees receipts, uniforms receipts, books receipts and other relevant records which were allegedly paid by appellant/husband for the welfare of the minor child as claimed by him in the appeal filed. However, it was the appellant/husband who failed to appear before the trial court and cross- examine the complainant in respect to the same, and therefore, was proceeded ex parte and it would be suffice to observe that there are no palpable reasons to disbelieve the version of complainant by the Ld. Trial Court in the absence of the appellant/husband appearing before it. Therefore, the aforesaid claims of appellant/ husband is of little relevance and hence discarded. Ld. Trial Court had 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.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 61 of 69 FINAL MAINTENANCE
66. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant/husband had not filed any financial documents before the Ld. Trial Court and had only filed the written submissions. However, subsequently, the parties had filed their financial documents at the stage of appeal.
67. The appellant/husband had filed a chart describing the expenses incurred upon the son during the education of child in school and college. Alongwith the aforesaid chart the school fee receipts of the child for the year 2005 to 2007 has been placed on record. In support of the same the appellant/husband has also filed the school fees schedule of the child while the child was studying at Kodaikanal during the year 2007-2008 and copy of demand draft pertaining to the payments made to the aforesaid school by the appellant/husband during the aforesaid period. The appellant/husband has also filed the college expenses of Uday Paul (son of the parties) while he was studying at Delhi College of Art for the year 2011 to 2014 and the fees receipts of the same. Further the appellant/husband has also placed on record the copy of air tickets allegedly book by him for the child for his travel between Delhi and Pune. With the aforesaid documents appellant has also placed on record a copy of cash memo in his own name regarding purchase of one laptop in June, 2011, and some medical bills pertaining to Uday Paul to Holy Family Hospital in the year 2007. Apart from the aforesaid documents appellant/husband has also filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, alongwith Form AS, computation and CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 62 of 69 statement of account for his bank account of South Indian Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Income from M/s Gemini Enterprise Ltd.
68. It has been argued on behalf of complainant/wife that the perusal of bank account statement of the appellant/husband itself shows that the appellant/husband is currently having income from several sources and that he was earning salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month being the director in Show Time Events India Pvt. Ltd., further the appellant have 75% share in the property bearing no.9/1, Kalkaji Extension New Delhi, 9.97% Shareholding in M/s Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd. Further, having 25% share holding in the company M/s SFX Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd and is also a Director. It has also been argued that the appellant was earning a salary of Rs.45,75,600/- being a director fro M/s Showtime Events for the financial year 2014- 2015 i.e. Approximately Rs.3,81,300/- per month and had profit of Rs.50,83,298/- for the same financial year and had also earned profit of Rs.5,06,805/- from the share profit of the aforesaid company, and the same was earned by the appellant even in the financial year 2017-2018 with slight variations. It has also been argued that the appellant had concealed his income from Gemini Enterprise and the Bank account statement pertaining to AXIS Bank, South Indian Bank and HDFC Bank show regular income and for the past three financial year the appellant has earned an amount of Rs.1,64,91,943/- cumulatively from Gemini Enterprises which amounts to Rs.4,58,109/- approx. per month. It is also argued that even today the appellant is earning an amount of Rs.3.75 Lakhs per month.
CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 63 of 69
69. On the other hand, complainant/wife has also placed on record her financial documents including certified copies of the bank account statement pertaining to ICICI Bank for the period between 01.04.2012 to 01.04.2016 and 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024.
70. Upon perusal of the financial documents of the parties, it is observed that the complainant/wife was maintaining only one bank account in ICICI Bank Branch Nehru Place, Delhi, and the credit amount during the period 01.04.2012 to 01.04.2016 is meager ranging from small deposits of Rs.14,100/-. The salary credited to the account of complainant/wife during her tenure employment is of Rs.50,400/-, and apart from the aforesaid deposits the account statements do not reflect deposit of any big amounts to the credit of the complainant/wife. Further, the bank account statement pertaining to the complainant wife during the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024 also shows deposits made by her son in her account for her expenses ranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- on different occasions and apart from the deposit made by her son there are no deposits in her account from any other sources.
71. The perusal of the bank account statement of the appellant/husband show that during the year March, 2021 to March, 2024 that income has received from Show Time of Rs.59,086/- every month in the AXIS Bank account which increased to Rs.1 Lakh on 02.06.2022 (as salary from Show Time), received by him through NEFT every month, and further, an amount of Rs.50,000/- received CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 64 of 69 from Gemini on 26.06.2023, and Rs.5 Lakhs on 08.07.2023, Rs.5 Lakhs on 09.07.2023, Rs.5 Lakh on 10.07.2023, and the same shows an amount of credit in his account for the year between 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024, a sum of Rs.2911185/-.
72. The perusal of the bank account statement of South Indian Bank for the period between 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024 shows that an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- received by him on 09.08.2021. An amount of Rs.3.78 Lakh was received on 03.03.2022, Rs.68,500/- received on 28.09.2022, Rs.3,78,000/- received on 03.03.2023, Rs.10 Lakh received on 03.07.2023, Rs.5 Lakh received on 07.07.2023, 08.07.2023 and 10.07.2023 from Gemini and Rs.37 Lakh received on 01.02.2024 and the cumulative amount credited in the bank account of South Indian Bank for the aforesaid period is Rs.88,21,125/-.
73. The bank account statement of HDFC Bank of the appellant shows that during the year March, 2021 to March 2024 there is deposit of Rs.25,000/- from Gemini Enterprise on 28.12.2021, Rs.30,000/- on 08.02.2022, Rs.25,000/- on 15.02.2022, and cash deposit from Gemini Enterprise again on 27.02.2022, 29.03.2022, 06.10.2022, 20.11.2022 and many other deposits even of bigger amount like Rs.5 Lakh on 02.07.2023 and 03.07.2023. The aforesaid account statement also shows total credit amount in the aforesaid bank account of the appellant to be Rs.27,664,469/-.
74. The evaluation of the aforesaid financial record pertaining to CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 65 of 69 both the parties shows that there are ample number of deposits in the bank account of the appellant into huge amounts as compared to the complainant/wife. Though it has been stated by the appellant that he was paying for the education expenses of the child between the parties, there is no whisper of any contribution or any financial assistance towards the complainant or any other expenses of the child during the separation between the parties after the year 2004 and during the pendency of the complaint before the trial court between December, 2009 to November, 2016 when the matter was finally decided by the Ld. Trial Court. It cannot be ignored that apart from the educational expenses towards the child there are other expenses incurred for the well being of the child like clothing, extracurricular activities, medical ailments, shoes, books, technological devices, tuition, food, nourishment etc. which are required to bring up a child which perhaps was taken care by the complainant/wife alone.
75. In my considered view, the Ld. Trial Court has meticulously calculated the aforesaid maintenance amount to the complainant and her minor child in its impugned order dated 16.11.2016. In view of the financial documents, filed by both the parties, it is certain that the appellant was having stable income during the period 2009 to 2016 for an amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs per month. Further, for the period during 2016 to 2021, the appellant financial documents are not available on record but it can be assessed that he continued to have the aforesaid income of Rs.3.5 Lakh per month. Also from the documents of the appellant for the period between 2021 to 2024 also shows that he has CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 66 of 69 been earning an income from different sources of Rs.3 Lakhs per month. Despite several opportunities to the appellant he initially did not disclose regarding the bank account held by him in his name and the same was furnished only upon the application moved on behalf of the complainant U/s 91 Cr.P.C. The appellant has claimed in response to the aforesaid application that he had resigned from Gemini Enterprise in the August, 2024, however, during the aforesaid period appellant has been continuously receiving the amount from the aforesaid company, which is substantiated from the bank account statement annexed by the appellant.
76. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by Ld. Trial Court is adequate, not on higher side and has been granted after considering the conduct of appellant/husband in shirking his responsibility of maintaining his wife and minor child during the period 2009-2016 and that the appellant/husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child, to take care of them and also to give decent living to them by providing basic necessities.
77. Therefore, considering that the litigation between the parties has been pending since the year 2009 and with the passage of time the appellant may not be physically in the capacity to have the same income which he was drawing in 2009, it cannot be said that he is not earning now or is not having any financial resources as the bank account statement of the appellant are self explanatory. The bank account statement and financial record of the appellant clearly shows CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 67 of 69 that appellant was having financial resources more than the complainant/ wife and he during the year 2009 and onward did not pay maintenance towards the complainant/wife and the child. To conclude it is assessed from the record, the income of the appellant/husband was Rs.3.5 Lakhs per month from the year 2009 till 2016 and during the aforesaid period the child was seeking education and had not completed the same, and therefore, both the complainant and the child is entitled for maintenance. Therefore, for the aforesaid period between 2009 till 2016 the maintenance of Rs.1 Lakh per month granted to the complainant by the Ld. Trial Court for herself and the minor child cumulatively has been rightly granted. Further the complainant was granted compensation amount of Rs.5 Lakhs u/s 22 of PWDV Act and the same has been correctly decided by the Ld. Trial Court.
78. Further, for the period January, 2017 onward, since the child had completed the education, only complainant/wife is entitled for maintenance and considering the financial income of the appellant/husband can be assessed to be Rs.3 Lakhs per month, the complainant/wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month.
79. I am of the considered opinion that appellant Rohin Paul, is capable of paying the maintenance as awarded above.
80. Present Appeal, therefore stands dismissed and disposed off accordingly. Any amount paid towards maintenance to the CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 68 of 69 complainant/wife till date in any proceeding and in present matter shall be adjusted towards the decreetal amount.
TCR be sent back along copy of this judgment.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date: 2025.07.07 Announced In The 16:31:05 +0530 Open Court Today [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 07.07.2025 CA No. 60/2017 Rohin Paul Vs. Sapna Paul Page no. 69 of 69