Delhi District Court
Manish Arora vs Alka on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 286/2023
PS- Amar Colony
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Manish Arora
S/o Sh. Arjun Dev Arora
R/o H. No. 69A, DG-2
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
.... Appellant
Versus
Alka
W/o Sh. Manish Arora
R/o H. No. 2/76, Palm Olympia Society
Sector 16C, Greater Noida
Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.
.... Respondents
Date of Institution : 15.09.2023
Date of Final Arguments : 26.04.2025
Date of Decision : 26.04.2025
Decision : Appeal Dismissed.
Impugned Order passed
by Ld. Trial Court stands
upheld.
CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 1 of 19
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 05.08.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT Case No. 696/2019 titled as "Alka Vs. Manish Arora.
2. Vide aforesaid impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has directed the appellant/ husband herein to pay ad-interim maintenance to the minor child to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid on or before 7 th day of each English Calender month from the date of passing impugned order till the decision of interim maintenance.
3. 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.
4. As per record of Ld. Trial Court, the brief facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, are as follows :-
"The complainant (Alka) got married with respondent (Manish Arora) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 21.04.2014 at Lucknow. Out of the said wedlock, female child namely Aanya Arora was born on 22.04.2016. That after the marriage, complainant resided at Aggarwal Dharamshala, CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 2 of 19 Sadar, Lucknow and then to H. No. 92, Virat Khan- I, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on a rented accommodation where she resided with the respondent alongwith her in-law for a week. Thereafter, complainant and her in-laws came and started residing with the respondent no. 1 at a rented accommodation in Delhi i.e. 63A, DG-2, Vikas Puri, New Delhi from 10.06.2014 till she was thrown out of the said shared household on 11.08.2017. That on 19.04.2014 in the engagement ceremony, valuable gifts, gold jewellery, articles, clothes and cash sagan were given to the respondents and their relatives. Thereafter, as demanded, the marriage of the parties was performed on 21.04.2014 with great pomp and show at K.K. Palace VIP Road, Alambagh, Lucknow, UP and parents of the complainant have left no stone unturned to perform a lavish marriage beyond their capacity. It has been stated that since the inception of the marriage, all the respondents including husband of complainant have started taunting to have bring less dowry in the marriage and not as per their expectation and due to which respondents have faced humiliation in the society. That on 11.08.2017, when the parents of complainant came to meet her, the respondents became extremely rude with them and respondent/ husband, directed the parents of the complainant to her back immediately. Thereafter, due to adamant behaviour of the in-laws and respondent herein towards the complainant, relations between them became strained. The complainant is a victim of extreme form of domestic violence at the hands of the respondents at various point of time. That complainant was ill treated as a maid servant in her CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 3 of 19 matrimonial house. That complainant is looking after her minor child by herself only and there is no emotional or financial support from her husband. That husband though has sufficient income and property but has intentionally and deliberately failed, neglected and refused to maintain the complainant and her child and presently she is residing at her parental home. After being continuously harassed, abused and beaten for a long period, complainant forced to take legal help. Hence, the present complaint case".
5. During the course of trial, income affidavits as directed by Ld. Trial Court were furnished by both the parties and when the matter was at the stage of further proceedings/ possibilities for settlement between the parties, at request of complainant arguments on the ad-interim maintenance were heard by Ld. Trial Court.
6. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2023, directed the respondent/ husband to pay ad- interim maintenance for the minor child to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the complainant, on or before 7 th day of each English Calender month from the date of passing of impugned order till the decision on interim maintenance.
7. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court, respondent/ husband has challenged the said order by way of present appeal by taking following grounds :-
CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 4 of 19
a) That Ld. Trial Court fell into patent and manifest errors of law by having passed by the Impugned Order in haste. In furtherance thereto, it is submitted that Ld. Trial Court while dealing with the said matter did not take into consideration the bonafide and genuine submissions made by Appellant insofar as it pertained to the possibility of an amicable settlement being arrived at in the said case, wherein no opportunity much less any reasonable opportunity was granted to the Appellant to work out an arrangement for ensuring arrangement of sufficient means necessary for amicably settling and resolving the matter as such the Impugned Order was passed completely overlooking the bonafide showcased by the Appellant.
b) That Ld. Trial Court erred by not taking into consideration the material documents as well as the contentions as well as submissions made by the parties in their respective Income Affidavits with respect to the disclosure of expenses being made and incurred by them.
c) That Ld. Trial Court while having passed the Impugned Order fell into patent and manifest errors of law by having erred in appreciating the fact that as per the admitted case of the Respondent, as is forthcoming from her Income Affidavit, (which was on record before the Ld. Trial Court), assuming without admitting or prejudicing the case of the Appellant, the expenses being borne towards the upbringing of the minor child, including her education, extra-curricular activities, medical expenses etc. aggregate to a tune of Rs. 12,937/- per month from the date of her enrollment in school till the present day. In response to the aforesaid expenses, the Appellant was/is ever willing CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 5 of 19 and desirous of voluntarily bearing an expense of Rs. 10,000/- towards the upbringing of the minor child, which is mentioned in the Impugned Order.
d) That Respondent/ complainant had misled Ld. Trial Court on the basis of oral submissions made by the Respondent that the Respondent was incurring an alleged monthly expense of Rs. 40,000/- towards the upbringing of the minor child whereas from her Income Affidavit, it is abundantly forthcoming that the aggregate expense of the minor child is not more than Rs. 12,937/- per month. Hence, the grant of Ad-
interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- towards the minor child doesn't appear to be a reasonable, just, fair, and proper order.
e) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate and consider that as per the bifurcation and disclosure of expenses given by the Respondent under Head -C, Serial No. 3, of her Income affidavit, i.e., C-Details with dependent family members, Respondent has conveniently stated that the Respondent has allegedly borne a cumulative expense of Rs. 8,61,757/- towards maintaining and upbringing the minor child since august 2017 till August 2022 which in the most respectful submission of the Appellant is wholly incorrect, untrue, misleading and far-fetched.
f) That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that complainant on the face of her Income Affidavit portraying herself as a destitute lady, living a hand-to-mouth life and what has not been considered by the Ld. Trial Court is that the complainant to the contrary is also earning sufficiently to the tune of Rs. 51,000/- per month and is saving a handsome amount of her salary by investing in mutual NSC and PPF Accounts which abundantly suggests that she has more than sufficient CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 6 of 19 means to provide for herself and the minor child. Moreover, had the Respondent been working and living with the Appellant, then also she would have contributed reasonably towards the upkeep of the child. However, the same has not been considered by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the Impugned Order.
8. In addition to the above grounds, Ld. Counsel for respondent/ husband has argued that the factum of utmost significance was not considered by Ld. Trial Court while passing the Impugned Order and the same was passed without due application of judicial mind and without adverting, referring and perusing the material as well as the Income Affidavit of the Respondent already on record. 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 and an endeavour to meet the minor child wherein the Appellant has in fact also filed an application U/s. 21 of the DV Act for seeking issuance of directions to the Respondent to permit the Appellant to visit and meet the minor child. However, no effective hearing on the same has taken place to date. It has been further argued that aforesaid separation and isolation of Appellant from his daughter of the tender age of 06 years is resulting in causing grave mental, emotional, and physical trauma to the Appellant as Appellant is being purposefully deprived of the love, care, and affection of his child at the hands of the Respondent who is merely using the minor child as a pawn to settle scores and seek vengeance from the Appellant by causing him immense mental trauma, cruelty and pain. It has been further argued that aforesaid acts and CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 7 of 19 omissions of the Respondent of separating the child from the Appellant is having an adverse & detrimental bearing on the well-being, welfare, and interest of the minor child who despite having a father, i.e., the Appellant is being deprived of the receiving the fatherly love, care, concern, and affection from him which is not in the best interest of the minor child. It has been further argued that Ld. Trial Court to the contrary did not appreciate the same as the documents/ Income affidavit of the Respondent/ complainant as well as the bonafide being shown by the Appellant to voluntarily contribute and pay upfront a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the maintenance of the minor child was not considered. Reliance has been placed upon the case law titled as Ruchi Majoo Vs. Sanjeev Majoo, Civil Appeal No. 4435 of 2011 and Pradeep Santolia & Ors. Vs. State & Anr." WP Crl 3294 of 2018.
9. 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 22.01.2019 and upon summoning the respondent/ husband had appeared before Ld. Trial Court on 27.03.2019 and thereafter the respondent filed his income affidavit and written statement. Subsequently, both the parties tried to resolve matter between them but despite efforts, matter was not settled. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2023, ad-interim maintenance was granted to the minor child of the parties and even then respondent has not paid any amount to the welfare of the minor child. He has further CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 8 of 19 argued that the complainant is M.Sc. BA pass and is residing with her minor daughter at her parental home and her parents are supporting her financially as the respondent has not been paying amount since the date of separation i.e. 11.08.2017. Ld. Counsel for complainant has stated that the minor child is currently studying in school and all the expenses are born by her. Further, that complainant is earning an amount of Rs.50000/- per month by working as a senior content analyst with Fliplearn Education Pvt. Ltd. Further that the ad-interim maintenance has been granted to complainant as respondent/ appellant has delayed the matter and the same is pending before Ld. Trial Court since 22.01.2019. 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 and minor child. It has been argued that from the income of appellant and the documents annexed with it, it can be seen that he is working as Regional Manager with PNB Metlife and is paid, HRA, Special Allowances, Incentive, Children Education Tuition Fee and has a Provident Fund apart from investments which he has made during the aforesaid period and has earnings from other sources which he has purposely not revealed in his income affidavit and has also not filed his ITRs for relevant period with the intention to evade from payment of maintenance. It has also been argued that appellant has several other bank accounts apart from the bank account of ICICI Bank which is reflected from bank accounts statement, 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. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 9 of 19
10. I have heard arguments advanced by respondent/ husband and Ld. Counsel for complainant/ wife and carefully perused the record including Trial Court Record.
11. 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 the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than the one CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 10 of 19 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 incomes and assets. It is also pertinent to note here that as per the CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 11 of 19 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.
14. 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."
15. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9503/2018, dated 04.11.2020 has held as under :-
CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 12 of 19 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.
16. 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 source of income through which, he could maintain her wife, ipso facto CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 13 of 19 does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife or his child if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
17. 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 11.08.2017 and the same is not disputed. Further, during the course of arguments, appellant was asked if he had paid any amount till date since the date of separation (11.08.2017) to the complainant or to the minor child, to which he has stated that he has not paid any amount to them. Further, the main contention of the respondent/ complainant herein is that the expenses claimed by the complainant for the minor child are amounting to Rs. 12000/- that is when the Ld. Trial Court has granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 20000/- per month. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent that Ld. Trial Court could not have granted the amount more than the amount claimed by the complainant and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
18. Firstly, I shall deal with pleas as taken by respondent/ husband while assailing the impugned order. One of the ground on which respondent has been seeking for setting aside of impugned order is that the complainant is a well qualified woman and is earning sufficient income as she is engaged as a senior content analyst with FlipLearn CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 14 of 19 Education Pvt. Ltd. Even if, for the sake of deciding the present appeal, it is believed that complainant is well qualified or is 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.
19. Further, in order to determine the quantum of ad-interim maintenance 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.
20. Under Section 12 of DV Act, an aggrieved person can approach 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. CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 15 of 19
21. 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.
22. 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 father to provide maintenance to her wife or child, stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. The wife is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home. Mere because the wife is earning, her right to get maintenance would not be barred. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case law titled as Nidhi Sudan Vs. Manish Kumar Khanna, 2023 SCC Online Del 7652.
23. Further, as per record of Trial Court and as per the income affidavit of complainant, she is M.Sc. class pass and her monthly income is around about Rs. 50,000/- and has also expenses towards her school going minor girl child. Further, the complainant since 11.08.2017 after the date of separation, had initially resided in the CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 16 of 19 parental house and is now residing in a rented accommodation alongwith her minor child. It is also admitted that since separation, respondent has not paid any maintenance for the complainant or the minor child. It is stated by the complainant in her income affidavit that the school fees, admission fees, medical expenses and other expenses towards stationary and tuition fees of the child is being paid by the complainant as the respondent has not paid any amount to the minor child and that she is incurring the expenses the amount of Rs. 12,500/- for the rent, Rs. 3450/- for the society maintenance, Rs. 4000 to Rs.5000/- for electricity, around Rs. 14000/- for the grocery and around Rs. 15000/- for other expenses. Further, it has been stated that she is paying around Rs. 7675/- for the school fee of the minor child along- with Rs. 500/- for the activity material, Rs. 16000/- for other expenses like food, clothing, medical, uniform and stationary etc. Further, that she has spent for Rs. 22000/- on the education of the child. The complainant has given specific details regarding the expenses of the child and in Column E of the income affidavit in 'para B) has stated the total expenses towards the minor child to be around Rs. 49000/- per month. Further, that the complainant is financially supported by her parents and brother. Alongwith the complaint, she has placed on record the copy of her bank account statement of Axis Bank, HDFC Bank, copy of Passport in her name, her Form 16, ITRs Returns and also the copy of salary slips and the copy of rent agreement, expenses towards the rented accommodation, Gas Bill, Invoice/ Fee Payment Receipts of the minor child and other expenses and their receipts paid towards the minor child.
CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 17 of 19
24. On the other hand, the respondent/ husband has not disclosed regarding the other bank accounts maintained by him and has also not placed the ITRs for the relevant period and has placed the medical records pertaining to his parents which are old and even of the period prior to the separation. and the respondent has only mentioned some fictitious amount received by him in his bank account and even purposely not disclosed regarding any other investments or deposits or savings with him. The respondent has also admittedly not paying any amount till date, since the separation with the complainant for the complainant or the minor child. Even during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent was unable to point out any document to show that the complainant has sufficient means to support herself and the minor child.
25. Therefore, in the aforesaid background, the passing of impugned order by Ld. Trial Court thereby awarding ad-interim maintenance towards the minor child after considering the income affidavit placed on record by both the parties, cannot be said to be on higher side. In these circumstances it is for the respondent/ husband to manage his expenses and merely giving the details of expenses by the respondent/ husband does not absolve him of his liability to maintain his wife and child. Therefore, the aforesaid ground taken by respondent/ husband by way of present appeal, is devoid of merit and therefore, is discarded and dismissed accordingly. I am of the considered opinion that respondent/ husband/ father is capable of paying the ad-interim maintenance as awarded by Ld. Trial Court to the minor child. CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 18 of 19
26. Ld. Trial Court has 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 and has meticulously calculated the aforesaid ad-interim maintenance amount to the minor child and has been granted after considering the conduct of respondent (husband) in shirking his responsibility of maintaining his minor child and the respondent/ husband is under legal obligation to maintain his wife to take care of her minor child and also to give decent living to them by providing basic necessities. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby respondent/ husband was directed to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs.20000/- to the minor child.
27. Hence, I conclude that Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order legally and correctly. It was not perverse in nature. The impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court needs no interference. Same stands upheld. Present Appeal, therefore stands dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced In The Digitally signed
by SHEETAL
CHAUDHARY
Open Court Today
SHEETAL
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.26
16:01:02
+0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
26.04.2025
CA No. 286/2023 Manish Arora Vs. Alka Page no. 19 of 19