Delhi District Court
Kavita Jain vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
Crl. (A) No. 46/2019
New Crl. (A) No. 179/2019
CNR No. DLSH010062112019
1. Kavita Jain
W/o. Sh. Sanjay Jain
R/o. H.No.W164, Chander Shekhear Gali,
Babarpur, Shahdara,
Delhi110032.
.........Appellant
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi.
2. Sh. Sanjay Jain
S/o. Sh. Kishan Lal Jain
Presently R/o. H.No.D77, Last Storey,
DDA Colony, Jhilmil,
Delhi110093.
Factory/Business Address:
A.I Enterprises,
J18, Gali No.5, Friends Colony,
Industrial Area, Shahdara,
Delhi110095.
.........Respondents
________________________________________________________________________
CA No.179/2019 Page 1 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain)
Date of filing : 20.09.2019
Date of arguments : 28.03.2022
Date of judgment : 11.04.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant u/s. 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as D.V.Act) challenging the judgment dt. 29.08.2019 passed by Ms. Deepti Devesh, Ld. MM (Mahila Court), Shahdara, Delhi, in CC No. 6414/2016, titled as Smt. Kavita Jain Vs. Sanjay Jain, whereby Ld. Trial Court awarded Rs.20,000/ per month as maintenance in favour of appellant and her minor child, Rs.10,000/ pm for alternative accommodation from the date of dispossession, if any and Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. R.K.L. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for appellant as also by Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also by Sh. Manish Bhadauria, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2. I have also perused the trial court record.
3. Ld. Counsel for appellant argued that respondent no.2 is leading a luxurious life having number of factories, number of bank accounts, ________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 2 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain) FDRs and Cars including one Audi A6 Car but Ld. Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/ only in favour of appellant and her daughter. It has been submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the living status and business of respondent no.2 while granting maintenance in favour of appellant despite the fact that it is admitted by respondent no.2 that he is running a factory of manufacturing copper rods and aluminum wire. Ld. Counsel for appellant further argued that respondent no.2 is living in adultery without obtaining divorce from her and he is also having two children from the said illicit relation. It is thus, prayed that maintenance amount be enhanced from Rs. 20,000/p.m to Rs. 1,00,000/ p.m and compensation from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 argued that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that Ld. Trial Court initially awarded interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/ and after considering the evidence led by the parties enhanced the maintenance from Rs.12,000/p.m to Rs.20,000/p.m. It has been submitted that liability of one son is already over as he is of age about 27 years and is married. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that appellant has not placed on record any document regarding income and properties of respondent no.2, as claimed by her. It has been further argued that appellant has admitted that she has locked three houses of respondent no.2 and in fact, she has thrown out respondent no.2 from one ________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 3 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain) of his property. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that allegation that respondent no.2 is living in adultery has no basis and there is no evidence on record in this regard. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 further argued that in case there is any change in circumstances, appellant can move application before concerned Court but there is no illegality in the impugned judgment, which calls for any interference by this court.
5. Impugned judgment has been assailed mainly on the grounds that Ld. Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned judgment; that Ld. Trial Court did not consider that the maintenance awarded by the court is not enough in accordance to the living status of the appellant and her minor child: that Ld. Trial Court did not consider that appellant was awarded maintenance of Rs.12,000/ per month vide order dt. 18.10.2012, however, since 2012 till 2019, income of the respondent no.2 has increased a lot from his various sources/business, but Ld. Trial Court increased only a meagre amount of the Rs, 8,000/ in the maintenance awarded to appellant; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the living status, business and income of the respondent no.2, which is already on record; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the debit & credit entries of bank account of respondent no.2; that Ld. Trial Court failed to direct respondent no.2 to furnish his last three years income tax return and statements of bank accounts in his individual name as well as in the name of his different firms; that Ld. Trial Court ________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 4 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain) committed grave error as it neither directed respondent no.2 to file his detailed affidavit of personal income and expenditure nor he submitted the same himself in view of the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma; that Ld. Trial Court completely ignored the fact that respondent no.2 is using EWay Bill System for OutwardSupply of goods for the other States; that Ld.Trial Court failed to consider the list of properties and their value owned by respondent no.2 as well as his rental income and income from savings and FDRs, which are in his own name; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that appellant has no source of income and appellant as well as her children are completely dependent upon the mercy of respondent no.2; that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that respondent no.2 is living with another lady in adultery and that Ld. Trial Court ignored the documents of both children namely Deepanshu Jain & Drishti Jain regarding the parentage, however, respondent no.2 stated before the Trial Court that there are so many persons of the same name and in other words, he denied the paternity of the children, which can be verified by conducting DNA test.
6. In brief, the relevant facts for disposal of the present appeal are that appellant filed a petition u/s. 12 of D.V Act stating that marriage of applicant/appellant was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 03.04.1993 as per Hindu rites and sufficient dowry articles were given in the ________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 5 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain) marriage. Two children namely Master Deepanshu Jain and Baby Drishti @ Isha Jain were born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that respondent no.2 harassed the appellant on account of less dowry and demanded a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. It is alleged that respondent no.2 and his family members stated that he has solemnized second marriage with one Smt. Vijay Laxmi and is having two children. On 02.03.2007, respondent no.2 gave merciless beatings to appellant, for which a kalandara vide DD No.4A was recorded. It is stated that respondent no.2 intentionally and deliberately neglected/deserted the appellant and her children and refused to maintain them although, he is a man of means running his own 56 factories of copper wire and earning more than Rs.2,50,000/ per month. Apart from other reliefs, appellant claimed maintenance of Rs.50,000/ p.m.
7. In support of its case, appellant tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit i.e Ex.PW1/1 as per averments made in the complaint. In her crossexamination, she has admitted that in Chander Shekhar Gali No.5, Babarpur, respondent no.2 and his family members have three houses and all the houses are locked by her. She has also admitted that due to sealing the business of respondent no.2 was shifted to J18, Friends Colony, Jhilmil, Delhi. She has further confirmed that she has not placed on record any document regarding approximate 12 properties of respondent no.2 in Delhi.
________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 6 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain)
8. Respondent no.2 also tendered his examination inchief by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A while deposing that appellant herself quarreled with him and turned him out of the house by calling the police. It is deposed that the marriage was a simple marriage solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir and that his son Deepanshu has attained the age of majority on 19.01.2012 and is doing Private Job. It is further deposed by respondent no.2 that appellant is a graduate and is giving tuitions at her home and she is already in possession of three properties of respondent no.2 and getting rent of Rs.50,000/ p.m from these properties.
9. The main plea of Ld. Counsel for appellant is that respondent no.2 is a man of means, who is leading a luxurious life having monthly income of more than Rs.2,50,000/ and as such, the amount of maintenance i.e Rs.20,000/ p.m is on lower side. In this regard perusal of trial court record shows that appellant has although claimed that respondent no.2 is having 12 properties in Delhi but she has admitted that she has not placed any document regarding the said properties on record. There is no documentary evidence on record to show the monthly income of respondent no.2 or about the details of his assets. It is admitted by appellant that she is in possession of three properties of appellant. Except admission of respondent no.2 that he is running a business, on account of which there is deposits of lakhs of rupees in his bank account, there is no other evidence on record to show the income of respondent no.2. During ________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 7 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain) crossexamination dt. 14.05.2019, respondent no.2 has admitted that he is filing ITR and can give the same on next date of hearing but thereafter, same was not filed on record. Although, appellant has admitted that she is in possession of three properties of respondent no.2, Ld. Trial Court directed to make additional payment of Rs. 10,000/ p.m, in case she is dispossessed from the shared household, for arranging alternate accommodation.
10. After considering the rival submissions and evidence led by the parties and especially the fact that neither of the parties have filed documents to establish income of the opposite party, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record SANJEEV room. KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Location: Shahdara Announced in the open court District, Karkardooma Courts Date: 2022.04.11 15:02:02 +0530 on 11.04.2022 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ04/Shahdara/KKD/ Delhi.
________________________________________________________________________ CA No.179/2019 Page 8 of 8 Kavita Jain Vs. State & Anr. (Sanjay Jain)