Delhi High Court - Orders
Swati Saista vs Dhirendra Kumar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025, CRL.M.A. 19579/2025 & CRL.M.A.
21913/2025
SWATI SAISTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swati Saista, Petitioner (through
VC).
versus
DHIRENDRA KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Mr. Shivam Singh
and Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 04.08.2025 CRL.M.A. 21913/2025 (seeking leave to amend the petition)
1. Since notice has not been issued and the Petitioner seeks to amend the petition at the initial stage, for the reasons disclosed in the application, the same is allowed and the amended petition is taken on record.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19579/2025 (Stay)
3. The present revision petition under Sections 438, 442 read with 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Sections 397, 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) is directed against judgment dated 13th May, 2025, passed by ASJ-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in C.A. No. 64/2024 titled Swati Saista v. Dhirendra Kumar. By the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, South West District, Dwarka 1 "BNSS"
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 1 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1582/2019, whereby the interim maintenance previously fixed at INR 1,00,000/- per month in favour of the Petitioner was reduced to INR 15,000/- per month.
Factual Matrix
4. The facts relevant to the present controversy, as gathered from the record, are summarised below:
4.1. The Petitioner/Complainant is the wife of the Respondent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 8th July, 2010, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They have a son, born on 16th September, 2011, who is currently in the Respondent's custody. The Petitioner alleges that she was subjected to cruelty and domestic violence during the marriage, which ultimately led to separation. The Respondent disputes this narrative and asserts, instead, that the Petitioner has long suffered from psychiatric illness since her college years, a fact allegedly suppressed at the time of marriage.
He further contends that, being technically qualified, the Petitioner is capable of sustaining herself and therefore not entitled to claim maintenance. 4.2. In this background, the Petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 11 th January, 2019, seeking inter alia a monthly maintenance of INR 3,38,500/- for herself and the minor son. Along with the complaint, an application under Section 23 of the Act was also filed seeking ex parte ad interim reliefs.
4.3. On 7th September, 2020, the Mahila Court, in Complaint Case No. 1582/2019 titled Swati Saista v. Dhirendra Kumar, while adjudicating the Petitioner's application for interim maintenance confined its determination 2 "CrPC"
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 2 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 to the Petitioner's entitlement alone, since the minor child was admittedly in the custody of the Respondent. Recognising the statutory duty of a husband to maintain his wife, particularly in the absence of independent income, and estimating the Petitioner's earning capacity to be in the range of INR 4-5 lakhs per annum, the Court directed the Respondent to pay monthly interim maintenance of INR 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner, with effect from the date of institution of the complaint, until further orders. 4.4. Aggrieved by this order, both parties filed cross-appeals - C.A. 188/2020 and C.A. 169/2020, respectively. These were disposed of by a common order dated 1st October, 2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. While affirming the general reasoning of the Mahila Court, the Appellate Court directed that the interim maintenance be limited to a period of one year, within which the Petitioner was expected to secure employment. It further directed the Mahila Court to reassess the interim maintenance. Both parties again approached this Court in Criminal Revision Petitions No. 43/2022 and 363/2021, respectively, which remain pending.
4.5. Meanwhile, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of CrPC, alleging that the Respondent had committed perjury by wilfully concealing material fact, especially pertaining to his income, in the proceedings before the Mahila Court. In parallel, the Respondent filed an application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act seeking modification of the interim maintenance order, citing a "change in circumstances" and asserting financial difficulty. 4.6. On 18th November, 2023, during the hearing on the Respondent's application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act, the Mahila Court passed two CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 3 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 distinct orders, both of which form the subject matter of the impugned judgment. By the first order dated 18th November, 2023 ["First Order"], the Court allowed the exemption application of the Petitioner. Simultaneously, the Mahila Court, vide another order dated 18th November, 2023 ["Second Order"], allowed the application for modification of the interim maintenance, concluding that there was prima facie evidence of loss of employment and income. Consequently, the monthly interim maintenance payable by the Respondent was reduced from INR 1,00,000/- to INR 15,000/-. The relevant operative portion of the Second Order is extracted as under:
"Heard. Considered, Case file alongwith all relevant documents perused.
The basic question to be decided here is whether there is any change in the financial position of the respondent which consequently requires alteration in the interim maintenance granted to the complainant.
Respondent claimed that he has been removed from his job on 29.04.2022. The copy of the termination notice is also placed on record. He also claimed that he has been put off duty since December 2020 and has not been receiving salary since then. The bank account statement filed by the respondent for all his three bank accounts shows no credit of salary after December 2020. The court is also convinced that complainant is mis reading the salary slips filed by the respondent and that respondent has not been receiving salary since December 2020. No alternative source of income of respondent came in light through out the arguments. The complainant has failed to produce any document which shows that respondent has any source of income whatsoever.
In view of the above observation, prima facie it appears that respondent has lost his job and as he is having no source of income, the order of interim maintenance dt.07.09.2020 granting interim maintenance of Rs.1 lac to the complainant is required to be altered. In the fresh income affidavit filed by the respondent dt.04.10.2023, the respondent claimed his expenditure to be Rs.55000/- p.m. including the expenditure of his minor son. The respondent is highly qualified CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 4 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 individual having special training and cannot be expected to be sitting idly at home. As he himself claims his expenditure to be Rs.55000/-, his income for the purposes of deciding the interim maintenance of the complainant, cannot be taken less than Rs.60,000/-. The income of the respondent is divided into four parts as per 'Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra', 2004(3) AD 252. Keeping three portion of assessed income for respondent, taking into consideration that the minor son is maintained by respondent himself, he is directed to pay Rs.15000/- per month in favour of complainant from the date of filing of application w.e.f 20.05.2022 till final disposal of the petition or till she is legally entitled to receive the same, whichever is earlier."
[Emphasis Supplied] 4.7. Aggrieved by both the above orders dated 18 th November, 2023, the Petitioner preferred statutory appeals before the Additional Sessions Judge- 02, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. By the impugned judgment dated 13th May, 2025, the Appellate Court affirmed both orders passed by the Mahila Court. It is this judgment that is under challenge in the present criminal revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner
5. The Petitioner-in-person makes the following submissions:
5.1. The Appellate Court gravely erred in failing to consider and adjudicate upon specific material grounds raised by the Petitioner in C.A. No. 64/2024, particularly those challenging the veracity of the Respondent's income affidavits, financial disclosures, and suppression of material facts.
This omission reflects a clear non-application of judicial mind and amounts to a miscarriage of justice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5.2. The Appellate Court altogether overlooked the Petitioner's pending application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of CrPC. That application, concerning the alleged commission of perjury by the Respondent through suppression and misrepresentation of material financial CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 5 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 facts, bore direct relevance to the determination of "change in circumstances" pleaded by him. The failure to consider this pending application, it is urged, vitiates the impugned judgment. 5.3. The Appellate Court merely reiterated the "prima facie" view adopted by the Mahila Court, without undertaking any independent judicial evaluation of the Respondent's financial disclosures. This included failing to consider the Respondent's incomplete affidavits, absence of ITRs/Form-16s, and the Petitioner's documentary rebuttals, including Income Tax Department records evidencing income of INR 4 Crores 8 Lakhs over five years. Such blind affirmation, without evidentiary analysis, is patently erroneous.
5.4. The Appellate Court failed to invoke Sections 106 and 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to draw adverse inferences against the Respondent for withholding crucial financial documents such as ITRs and Form-16s.
5.5. The Appellate Court erroneously accepted the Respondent's claims of financial distress, purportedly due to friendly loans and advances, without demanding any objective proof such as bank records, transaction details, or sworn confirmations. This was a material issue raised in appeal, and the Court's failure to scrutinize such unsupported claims reflects non- application of mind.
5.6. The Appellate Court upheld the Mahila Court's reduction in interim maintenance, despite the absence of any proven "change in circumstances". In the absence of any such substantiation, the finding of the Mahila Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, is said to rest on conjecture and lacks any evidentiary foundation.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 6 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 5.7. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the Mahila Court had erroneously entertained applications and unverified claims from the Respondent, despite credible allegations and supporting material establishing discrepancies and falsehoods in his financial disclosures. This contravenes the settled legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114], which bars relief to litigants who mislead the court or suppress material facts. 5.8. The cumulative effect of the legal and procedural lapses described above, ranging from denial of a fair hearing and disregard of material evidence, to mechanical reliance on unverified representations and misapplication of legal principles, has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. The Petitioner contends that her right to a fair adjudication, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, stands infringed, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Analysis
6. Having heard the submissions and examined the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is important to underscore at the outset that the order under challenge pertains to interim maintenance, a purely interlocutory arrangement meant to provide sustenance during the pendency of the main proceedings. Such orders are inherently fluid and provisional in nature, to address immediate needs without foreclosing or predetermining issues that may fall for full adjudication at trial.
7. It is settled law that, while adjudicating an application for interim maintenance, the court is not required to undertake a meticulous assessment of evidence akin to a full-fledged trial. Instead, what is expected is a broad CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 7 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 and reasonable estimation based on the financial disclosures placed on record. This Court in Sarita Bakshi v. State3 as well as the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha,4 have laid down comprehensive guidelines for the determination of maintenance. The objective is to ensure that a spouse, unable to sustain themselves during the pendency of litigation, is not rendered destitute by delays in adjudication.
8. It is trite that under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act, the court is empowered to revisit interim orders upon being satisfied that there exists a material "change in circumstances". The Appellate Court approached the issue within this statutory framework and undertook a prima facie assessment, as warranted at the interim stage. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:
"11. Having discussed the principles of law governing the question of adjudication of grant of interim maintenance, it would be prudent here to refer here the specific provision which give the right to the aggrieved person or respondent to move court of Magistrate for alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under the Act if the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring such alteration, modification or revocation. Section 25(2) of the Act interalia provides as under:-
"(2) If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate."
12. I shall now examine whether Ld. Trial Court erred in law (as contended by appellant) by partly modifying the order of maintenance on account of change in circumstances and upon the application moved by the respondent/husband.
13. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned the 3 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1707.
4(2021) 2 SCC 324.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 8 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 respondent/husband had approached the Id. Trial court with the prayer that the interim maintenance granted to the appellant/wife should be stopped on account of change in circumstance related to his financial position. It was contended on behalf of respondent/husband that since the grant of interim maintenance his minor son has been residing with him and all the maintenance expenses in this regard are borne by him. Another change in circumstance highlighted by the respondent / husband is that he was dismissed from his job on account of termination notice dated 29.04.2022 and thus he is presently unemployed. Respondent /husband is not receiving salary since December 2020 and the said fact is reflected in his bank account statement. The respondent/husband stated that he is staying in a rented accommodation along with his minor son and his monthly expenses are Rs. 55,000/- which is being borne by him by taking loan from relative / friends. A meticulous perusal of the judicial pronouncement by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2023 reflects that apart from an affidavit dated 04.10.2023 a statement of respondent/husband was also recorded wherein it was submitted that he has not been receiving form 16 from his employer for the financial year 2021-22 and 2022-2023 and he has not filed the respective income tax returns for those years. It was stated that he has no self- acquired property bearing no. B-503, Meghdoot Apartment, Plot No.19, Sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi. The primary apprehension raised on behalf of the appellant/wife is that correct facts have not been presented before the Id. trial court by the respondent/husband and the respondent/husband has received salary from his employer and is having sufficient funds to honour the legal obligation of paying interim maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh to her.
14. As already noticed that it is the settled legal position that while considering the question of determining the quantum of interim maintenance or considering the question of change in circumstance for altering, modifying or revoking such quantum, only a prima facie view is to be taken and in the considered opinion of this court, Ld trial court has not only taken a reasonable prima facie view in taking into account the change in circumstances but has also discussed at length the apprehensions raised on behalf of appellant wife with respect to suppression of any material information on behalf of respondent/ husband or with respect to other aspects of the matter. In the considered opinion of this court, no fault can be found with the reasoning provided by the Id. trial court while determining a prima facie view with respect to the change in circumstance in terms of the legal principles underlying the grant or refusal of interim maintenance or its modification if the circumstance gets changed. This court is of the view that the financial circumstance of the CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 9 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 respondent/husband have considerably changed as observed by the Id. trial court in the impugned order thereby necessitating the requisite modification of the partial modification and the direction that respondent/husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of appellant/wife from the date of filing of application w.e.f 20.05.2022 till final disposal of the petition or till she is legally entitled to receive the same, whichever is earlier.
15. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal stands dismissed"
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. The impugned judgment reveals that both the Mahila Court and the Appellate Court relied upon the Respondent's assertions, supported by termination notices, bank statements, and sworn affidavits, demonstrating cessation of salaried income post-December 2020. While the Petitioner strongly contested these claims, it is pertinent to note that the Mahila Court did not accept the Respondent's submissions at face value but rather conducted a cautious and proper evaluation of the material on record. It noted the absence of Form-16s and ITRs, but placed reliance on the Respondent's claimed expenditures and drew a notional income to arrive at a figure of INR 60,000 per month. Applying the well-established ratio in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, the Court carved out a one-fourth share for the Petitioner and fixed interim maintenance at INR 15,000 per month. Crucially, the appellate reasoning reiterates that the standard at this stage is not one of proof beyond doubt, but of forming a reasonable view pending final determination. The Court was satisfied that there had been a demonstrable reduction in the Respondent's financial capacity, warranting a downward revision of interim maintenance. It also took into account the fact that the minor child was in the care of the Respondent, thereby increasing his financial expenditure.CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28
10. This Court finds no error in the Appellate Court's approach regarding the pendency of the Petitioner's application under Section 340 of CrPC. The mere pendency of such an application does not ipso facto create a legal embargo on the determination of an application under Section 25(2) of the PWDV Act. These are distinct statutory remedies, operating in separate spheres. While the Section 340 CrPC application pertains to the initiation of criminal proceedings for perjury, the application under Section 25(2) is confined to evaluating whether a prima facie change in financial or other material circumstances justifies modification of an interim maintenance order. The Appellate Court was therefore under no obligation to await the outcome of the Petitioner's Section 340 CrPC proceedings before adjudicating the Respondent's application for modification. It is equally relevant that the Petitioner remains at liberty to pursue appropriate relief in her Section 340 proceedings, and no demonstrable prejudice has been shown to result from the Appellate Court's omission to expressly advert to that aspect.
11. The Appellate Court reasoning reflects due application of mind and independent analysis of the facts and law. It specifically considered the Respondent's affidavit dated 4th October, 2023, the accompanying documents, and his oral statement, which detailed his job loss, lack of income, non-receipt of Form-16s, and prevailing financial hardship. The Court also took into account the apprehensions raised by the Petitioner but found that those concerns had already been adequately considered by the Mahila Court. Mere concurrence with the findings of the lower court does not render the appellate reasoning mechanical, particularly when such concurrence is the result of independent scrutiny.CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 11 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28
12. As discussed above, at interim stage, the Court does not embark on a detailed or exhaustive evidentiary analysis, but proceeds on a prima facie basis. The Appellate Court was justified in observing that the burden of proof at this stage is relatively lighter and that a prima facie assessment of "change in circumstances" suffices. The adverse inferences under Sections 106 or 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act as emphasised by the Petitioner are more appropriately drawn during a full-fledged trial. In any event, the Respondent offered a reasonable explanation for his non-filing of ITRs and the absence of Form-16s, which the Appellate Court found sufficient for the limited purpose of adjudicating the interim maintenance modification application.
13. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court, did not accept the Respondent's claims of friendly loans or financial distress at face value. Rather, it undertook an overall assessment of his financial condition, noting in particular that the Respondent was unemployed, had custody of the minor son, and was sustaining himself through borrowings.
14. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decision in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., [(2010) 2 SCC 114], is misconceived. The principles laid down in that judgment apply to cases where a party has been conclusively found to have obtained relief through suppression of material facts. In the present case, no such finding has been returned by either the Mahila Court or the Appellate Court.
15. The contention that the Petitioner's right to a fair trial was violated is equally devoid of merit. Although it is recorded in the Mahila Court's First Order that the Petitioner's exemption application was allowed, the Respondent's application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act was CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 12 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28 adjudicated vide a Second Order passed on the same date. It is evident from the record that the Petitioner had been appearing in earlier hearings relating to the Section 25(2) application, thereby dispelling any suggestion that she was denied an opportunity of being heard. Further, the Appellate Court granted her full opportunity to contest the modification application, raise objections, and file rebuttal material. The impugned judgment, having returned findings adverse to the Petitioner on merits, cannot now be re- agitated in revision, particularly when this Court is exercising limited revisional jurisdiction.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the well-settled position of law, this Court finds no arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference under its revisional jurisdiction.
17. It also bears reiteration that interim maintenance is intended as a stopgap arrangement to ensure financial subsistence and basic security during the pendency of proceedings. It does not conclude the rights of the parties nor preclude a re-evaluation at the final stage.
18. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 4, 2025/as CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 Page 13 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 22:36:28