Delhi District Court
Himanshu Sharma vs Sadhna Sharma on 20 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA No. 95/2022
CIS No. DLET01-005271-2022
In the matter of:
Himanshu Sharma
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o RZ-69, Gali No. 5,
Kailash Puri Extension,
Delhi-110046.
............Appellant
Versus
1. Sadhna Sharma
W/o Himanshu Sharma
D/o Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o Sector-18B, Pink Apartment
Flat No. 13, Dwarka
Delhi-110078.
Temporary Address:
9/2939, Gali No. 17A,
Kailash Nagar, Dharampura,
Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
2. Kritika Sharma (Minor)
D/o Himanshu Sharma
R/o Sector -18B, Pink Apartment,
Flat No. 13, Dwarka, Delhi-110078.
.......Respondents
Date of institution of case : 01.06.2022
Date of hearing arguments : 20.01.2023
Date of passing of judgment : 20.01.2023
CA No.95/2022 Himanshu Sharma vs. Sadhna Sharma etc. Page 1/6
CRIMINAL APPEAL, UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE PROTECTION
OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VOILENCE ACT, 2005, AGAINST
THE IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 11.08.2021, PASSED BY THE
COURT OF MS. SHRUTI CHAUDHARY, LD. MM (MAHILA COURT-
01), WHEREBY, THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED TO PAY
RS.5,000/- PER MONTH TO THE RESPONDENT, AS EX-PARTE,
AD-INTERIM MAINTENANCE
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal is preferred by Himanshu Sharma, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, against the impugned order, dated 11.08.2021, passed by Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (Mahila Court), East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby, the ld. MM awarded an ex-parte ad-interim maintenance, to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month, in favour of the respondent, from the date of filing of present petition, till disposal of the application, seeking interim maintenance.
2. The case of the appellant is that, he got married to the respondent, namely, Sadhna Sharma, on 30.01.2012, and, out of the said wedlock, one female child was born, who is in care and custody of the respondent no.1. It is further stated that respondent deliberately caused continuous physical and mental cruelties upon the appellant. It is further stated that, since 31.01.2020, the respondent is residing separately from the appellant and filed a false case u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against him and his mother. Aggrieved from the impugned order, dated 11.08.2021, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. I have heard ld. counsel for the appellant at length and have carefully CA No.95/2022 Himanshu Sharma vs. Sadhna Sharma etc. Page 2/6 gone through the entire record.
4. It is argued, by ld. counsel for the appellant, that the impugned order is against the settled principles of law of natural justice and, as such, same is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. It is further argued, by ld. Counsel for the appellant, that the ld. Trial Court ignored the present status and financial capacity of the appellant. It is further argued that the ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that respondent no. 1 is earning Rs.30,000/- per month from her job. As such, it is argued that the impugned order, dated 11.08.2021, be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. It is pointed out that the Ld. Trial Court order dated 11.08.2021 is well reasoned and was passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. In this background, it is pertinent to rely on judgment titled as Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 (74) DRJ 99, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein it was held as under:
" It would be extremely loath to restrict the maintenance to 1/5th of the husband's income where this would be insufficient for the wife to live in a manner commensurative with her husband's status or similar to the life style enjoyed by her before the marital severance. In my view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resources Cake in two portions to the husband, since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to the other members".
CA No.95/2022 Himanshu Sharma vs. Sadhna Sharma etc. Page 3/67. The relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 11.08.2021, is reproduced herein below as under: "Matter was fixed today for completion of pleadings. Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that neither the WS nor the Affidavit of Income and Assets has been filed by the respondents till date. Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that an application seeking ex-parte ad-interim maintenance is pending adjudication before this Court. He further submits that a minor seven-year-old child is living with the complainant who does not have any means to sustain herself and her minor child. He therefore, prays for an ex-parte ad- interim maintenance to be granted to the complainant pending the adjudication of the application seeking interim maintenance.
No one is present on behalf of the respondents today, despite several calls.
Heard. Record perused.
In view of the facts of the present matter, I deem it fit to grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as ex-parte ad-interim maintenance to be paid to the complainant from the date of filing of the present application till the disposal of the application seeking interim maintenance. Respondent no. 1 is directed to clear the arrears of the same before the NDOH.
With the above directions, the present application stands disposed of. Respondents are directed to file WS and respondent no. 1 is directed to file Affidavit of income and Assets at least 10 days before the NDOH with advance copy to the Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Issue summons to respondents through DCP concerned, on filing of PF within 7 days from today, returnable on 18.11.2021."
CA No.95/2022 Himanshu Sharma vs. Sadhna Sharma etc. Page 4/68. It is apparent from the impugned order that appellant is not paying any maintenance to the respondent, despite the fact that, being the husband of the respondent, it is his moral duty as well as legal duty to provide maintenance to his wife. It is pertinent to note that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is aimed at strengthening the economic independence of a woman. Therefore, the ld. Trial Court, has rightly observed that the aspect of financial deprivation of woman is included in the category of economic abuse. It is pertinent to mention that an aggrieved woman needs economic support, in view of the domestic violence, perpetrated upon her by a person, who is in domestic relation with her.
9. The perusal of the impugned order shows that, respondent has neither filed written statement nor filed Affidavit of Income and Assets. There is nothing on record to ascertain the income of appellant. Ld. Trial Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- from the date of filing of present petition, till disposal of the application, seeking interim maintenance. It is to be pointed out that complainant does not have any means to sustain herself and her minor child.
10. There is nothing on record to show the exact income of the appellant. Considering the cost of living, in the Metropolitan Cities, like Delhi, the ex- parte ad-interim maintenance awarded by the Ld. Trial Court to the respondent seems very nominal. It is settled law that every able bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and cannot run away from this responsibility by giving excuses.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that, the impugned order was passed, after correct appreciation of facts and material on record. The ld. Trial Court, considered all relevant issues and facts, at the time of CA No.95/2022 Himanshu Sharma vs. Sadhna Sharma etc. Page 5/6 passing of the impugned order, which is well-reasoned. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, dated 11.08.2021. There is no merit in appeal and the impugned order, dated 11.08.2021, does not call for any interference. The grounds, as taken by the appellant, are without any basis, on facts and law. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
12. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to any expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, pending before the ld. Trial Court.
13. Copy of the order alongwith Trial Court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information and compliance.
14. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN RAMESH Location: KARKARDOOMA COURT ON 20th JANUARY, 2023 KUMAR COURTS, DELHI Date: 2023.01.20 17:11:08 +0530 (RAMESH KUMAR) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI CA No.95/2022 Himanshu Sharma vs. Sadhna Sharma etc. Page 6/6