Delhi District Court
[Devendra Prasad Sinha vs . State & Anr.] on 12 September, 2014
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014
[Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.]
Dated : 12th September 2014.
IN THE COURT OF : SH. KANWALJEET ARORA :
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI [PC ACT]:
NEW DELHI.
DWARKA COURTS :
Crl.Appeal No.: 01 / 2014.
1. Devendra Prasad Sinha,
S/o.: Sh.Ram Briksha Prasad,
R/o.: 103, Surbhi Apartment,
South Office, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
[ .... Appellant ]
v e r s u s
1. State
2. Ms.Rashmi,
W/o.: Sh.Devendra Prasad Sinha,
D/o.: Sh.Gyanendra Arya,
R/o.: H.No.E79, IInd Floor,
Near Kali Bari, Bengali Colony,
Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi110045.
[.... Respondents]
Date of Institution of Appeal : 13.08.2014.
Date of Allocation : 13.08.2014.
Date of conclusion of arguments : 09.09.2014.
Date of Order : 12.09.2014.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 1 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014
[Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.]
Dated : 12th September 2014.
[Particulars related to impugned order]
C.C. No. : 1604 / 13.
Under Section : 12,18,19,20 & 22 of
Domestic Violence Act.
Police Station : Dabri.
Date of Impugned Order : 16.07.2014.
Name of Ld.Trial Court : Ms.Charu Gupta,
Ld.MM, Dwarka.
Memo of appearance:
Sh.Prodeep Norula, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for Appellant
D.P.Sinha.
None for respondent no.1 State.
Sh.Ravi Dutt, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2
Ms.Rashmi.
O R D E R :
1. Appellant Devendra Prasad Sinha has taken exception to the orders dated 16.07.2014 passed by Ms.Charu Gupta Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi, whereby he has been directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/ per month to his estranged wife ie. respondent no.2 Ms.Rashmi with effect from date of filing of the petition till its disposal on merits.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 2 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
2. Notice of the appeal was given to respondent no.1 ie. State as well as to respondent no.2 Ms.Rashmi, who is the complainant / applicant, before Ld.Trial Court. Trial Court Record was also summoned.
3. Pursuant to service of notice, none appeared for respondent no.1 State. On behalf of respondent no.2 Ms.Rashmi, Sh.Ravi Dutt, Advocate, tendered his appearance.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh.Prodeep Norula, Advocate , Ld.Counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Sh.Ravi Dutt, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the respondent no.2 Rashmi and have also gone through the appeal and the grounds on which the same has been filed. I have also perused the complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant before Ld.Trial Court. I have also perused the impugned orders dated 16.07.2014 & the trial court record.
5. Ms.Rashmi had filed an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 3 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as PWDV Act). She had come up with following prayers :
(a) Pass orders under section 20 of the act in favor of the applicant / aggrieved person ie.
Ms.Rashmi, directing respondent ie. Devendra Prasad Sinha to pay a sum of (i) Rs.2 lacs towards Medical Expenses + (ii) Rs.10 lacs towards loss due to destruction / damage or removal of property from aggrieved person and + (iii) Rs.5 lacs towards physical and Mental injury, which in all comes out to Rs.17 lacs and a further sum of Rs.30,000/ towards food, clothes, medication etc. ; a sum of Rs. 20,000/ towards household expenses and ; a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards medical expenses on monthly basis.
(b) Pass orders under section 18 of the Act protecting the applicant from the impending Domestic Violence.
(c) Pass orders under section 19 of the Act and direct the respondents to pay rent of the rented residential accommodation.
(d) Pass orders under section 22 of the Act providing compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lacs to the aggrieved, for the agony suffered, both mental as well as physical, due to the domestic violence.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 4 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
6. As per the complaint, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house, owing to mental and physical violence meted out to her by the respondents. She had contended that she had no other option but to burden her old parents to extend shelter to her, as her husband (appellant herein) had willfully neglected her and failed to maintain her. She had also contended that as her husband compelled her to consume IPills on regular basis, the same has resulted in serious medical implications, for which she requires regular medical check ups and medication. She had stated that she is unable to maintain herself, as she does not have any professional qualification nor any experience of working anywhere.
7. According to the stand taken by husband / respondent, as is evident from the reply to the complaint, all the allegations levelled by the complainant against him and his family members of alleged domestic violence are stated to be vague, baseless and false. He contended that she herself was aggressive, arrogant, uncooperative and temperamental. He claimed that complainant Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 5 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
Rashmi is running a beauty parlour and has good earning, with which she can maintain herself. He submitted that he himself is a man of limited means and has net salary income of Rs.60,000/ per month. He contended that he has to look after his old parents and towards that he has to incur expenditure of Rs.12,000/ per month. He further contended that for compliance of orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 17.07.2013 whereby he was granted bail in FIR No.417/2012 PS Dabri registered on her complaint, he had to deposit a sum of Rs.9 lacs. For which he had taken loan from the bank and for its repayment, he has to pay EMIs amounting to Rs.27,273/. He contended that besides rent of Rs. 7,000/ he has to pay premium of his policies with LIC, amounting to Rs.6583/ per month.
8. Respondent Devendra Prasad Sinha contended that in view of his meager income and huge expenditure, the allegations in the complaint are baseless and she herself being capable of maintaining her, the complaint should be dismissed. Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 6 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
9. Perusal of trial court record reveals that pursuant to orders of Ld.Trial Court dated 04.09.2013, both the parties were directed to file affidavits, stating their respective qualifications, assets, income, liabilities etc., with supporting documents.
10. Both the parties in compliance thereof, had filed their respective affidavits along with the documents. It is pertinent to mention that appellant herein before passing the impugned order dated 16.07.2014 by Ld.Trial Court, had filed documents stating that he has been removed from his job as Manager with ICICI Bank and is unemployed now.
11. Ld.Trial Court taking stock of all the facts and circumstances before it, and the documents on record, more particularly the salary income of respondent / husband to be Rs.80,000/ (gross) and finding that he had no other liability to maintain anyone except his wife and also considering the standard of living of the parties, had directed him to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/ per month. It is important to Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 7 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
mention that Ld.Trial Court had observed that interim maintenance paid, if any, shall stand adjusted.
12. Grouse of the appellant brought to the fore by Sh.Pradeep Norula, Advocate, is that Ld.Trial Court while stating in the impugned order itself that at this stage, court cannot go into deep minute assessment of earnings and assets of the parties, still passed such a harsh order which appellant owing to financial constraints cannot comply. He contended that Ld.Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant had to take loan from the banks to comply with the directions of Hon'ble High Court, in order to deposit Rs.9 lacs and thus have to pay monthly installments, after which he hardly is left with anything substantial to meet his own expenses.
13. Another contention urged by Ld.Counsel for appellant is that the respondent Ms.Rashmi is running a beauty parlor and is capable of maintaining herself, which fact was also not considered by Ld.Trial Court. He claimed that the interim maintenance as fixed is excessive and exorbitant.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 8 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
14. On the other hand, Ld.Counsel for respondent wife, had justified the impugned order stating that the same has been passed by Ld.Trial Court after appreciating the material on record.
15. I have carefully gone through the trial court record, more particularly the complaint, reply to it, affidavits of the parties and the supporting documents. I have also considered the impugned order and the grounds of appeal assailing the same, visavis rival contentions raised by Ld.Counsels for both the parties.
16. In a perfect society, men and women complement each other rather than compete with each other. They would rather derive pleasure and happiness from honoring and not negating each other. Unfortunately, that is not the society we have inherited. Domestic violence is a pervasive problem in India that cuts across age, education, social class and religion. It is not simply a legal problem which can be eradicated by legal measures alone. It is very much a social and psychological problem and can be tackled adequately by Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 9 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
bringing about fundamental changes in the social system and in the attitudes of the people towards women and children.
17. However, here we are with the present proceedings in hand, which are required to be dealtwith, according to the legal measures as per enacted laws and its interpretation by the Superior Courts given from time to time.
18. To seek maintenance is basic and indispensable right of any hardup and broke wife. She can knock the doors of any court be it civil court, criminal court or family court. Right to seek maintenance is civil right falling under General Laws which has additionally been reaffirmed under PWDV Act as well.
19. Maintenance can be sought by any wife, who is unable to maintain herself, by invoking various following provisions, appearing in different statutes: Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 10 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
(i) Maintenance under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Earlier there was an upper cap of Rs.500 per month which was eventually deleted with effect from 24.09.2001.
(ii) Monetary relief including maintenance under section 20 (1) (d) of PWDV Act. Such Act came into existence with effect from 13.09.2005.
(iii)Maintenance u/s 25 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
(iv) Maintenance u/s 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
20. Order of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C is somewhat limited and restricted whereas, scope of grant of maintenance and financial relief under PWDV Act is definitely larger.
21. Though the jurisdictions are varied, each such forum has to be wary of any relief of maintenance granted by other. Admittedly, parties to the present proceedings have not invoked the jurisdiction of any other forum except for filing the complaint under section 12 of PWDV Act for grant of maintenance. Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 11 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
22. In the backdrop of above, I would deal with the multifaceted contentions urged on behalf of appellant. The first of which being that the trial court having observed in the impugned order that it cannot go deep into minute assessment of income and assets of the parties, should not have passed the order, to my mind is such a farfetched contention to have any substance.
23. Legislature in its wisdom and being aware of the fact that the decision on contentious issues raised by the parties before Court, is likely to take time, therefore it had incorporated the provisions for grant of interim maintenance in the Statute. The Court is thus empowered to use this provision to pass an order of interim maintenance, which however is subject to the final adjudication of the respective rights of the parties after trial.
24. Thus, this argument of Ld.Counsel for the appellant does not hold ground, as Ld.Trial Court was very much empowered to pass the order for grant of Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 12 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
interim maintenance. It is however required to be seen as to whether Ld.Trial Court while passing the impugned order, had dealt with the respective cases of the parties brought on record by them through their affidavits and the documentary evidence, which I shall advert to now.
25. It has led me to the next contention urged by Ld.Counsel for the appellant that appellant who was working as Manager with ICICI Bank has been removed from his services and is unemployed now, which fact was not considered by Ld.Trial Court.
26. Perusal of the impugned order and the documents placed on record by the appellant speaks otherwise. Ld.Trial Court had dealt with this contention of the appellant. It is evident that appellant is not removed but has resigned on his own from the job. It is evident on perusal of affidavit filed by the appellant before Ld.Trial Court that he had started his carrier as "Finance Trainee" with MECON Limited from February 1998. From this affidavit, it is apparently Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 13 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
evident that since February 1998 to the present date, ie. for last more than 16 years, he never remained unemployed even for a month. The affidavit filed by him clearly depicts that he had worked with 6 organizations till now. His own affidavit reveals that whenever he had left his employment, he had joined the next organization immediately, with no gap inbetween. Thus, it can be safely presumed that on previous occasions, he had left his earlier job for better prospects only.
27. The documents filed on record by the appellant also reveals that this time as well, it was he, who has resigned from the job and was neither removed nor terminated by his employer. So this could not have been a factor, considering his past track record, with Ld.Trial Court to deny the relief to the complainant.
28. In view of this, I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld.Counsel for the appellant raised by him to assail the impugned order.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 14 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
29. Another facet to the arguments of Ld.Counsel for the appellant was that Ld.Trial Court while passing the impugned order, failed to appreciate that parents of the appellant are dependent on him and he has to maintain them as well. He, in support of his contention has relied on "Annexure A4" dated
13.02.2014 issued by MECON Limited, the company from where father of appellant had retired, filed along with the appeal.
30. I have considered the contention of Ld.Counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, appellant is not the only son of his father. Further, parents of appellant are residing in Ranchi where admittedly as per affidavit of appellant the house is in the name of his mother and they have ancestral property as well.
31. Bare perusal of Annexure A4 makes it explicit that father of appellant took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 17.04.2000. Admittedly, appellant was in job at that time. Had after retirement, his parents became dependent on him, then he would have shown Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 15 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
them so, in his office / employment records immediately thereafter. But, that was not to be. Admittedly, appellant had joined the present service in October 2007. He could have shown them as dependent on him at that time. Again, that was not to be. This certificate itself reveals that the same has been issued, pursuant to a request letter dated 12.02.2014 of father of the appellant, ie. much after invocation of jurisdiction of the court by wife of appellant seeking maintenance. Thus, the reasons for which the certificate was sought and now being relied upon, are not far to seek.
32. Had parents of appellant dependent on him at the time of his joining the service, then there was no reason with him to have asked for this certificate from exemployer of this father, at this stage.
33. In view of these facts and circumstances, I do not find any merits in this contention of Ld.Counsel for the appellant raised by him to assail the impugned order.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 16 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
34. Next limb of the contentions urged by Sh.Prodeep Norula, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the appellant was that Ld.Trial Court had failed to appreciate that net salary of appellant was Rs.60,000/ per month only, from which he has to pay EMIs of Rs. 27,273/ for the repayment of the loan taken by him to deposit Rs.9 lacs in compliance of orders dated 17.07.2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court in FIR No. 417/2012 lodged by the complainant. He contended that Ld.Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant has to pay rent @ Rs.7000/ besides paying the premium of LICs in his name @ Rs.6583/. He contended that appellant has to incur expenses towards treatment of his parents @ Rs.12,000/ per month.
35. I have considered these submissions made by Ld.Counsel for the appellant in the light of the facts stated by him in reply to the complaint before Ld.Trial Court as well as the affidavit filed declaring his income, assets and liabilities.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 17 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
36. Definitely, means and capacity of husband is required to be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of maintenance. At the same time, as per PWDV Act, such monetary relief should be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. Problem arises as there is widespread tendency to downplay or hide the actual income by any such male partner. It is harsh reality that when any ablebodied man wants to enter into any wedlock, he projects himself as if he were a "Prince" but when it comes to making any payment towards the maintenance, he projects himself nothing more than a "Pauper". Court has no magic wand and therefore, on some occasions, potential earning capacity is to be inferred by the Court, keeping in mind, the overall status and style of living of the parties. Conduct of the parties is also one such consideration. A party who dares to conceal vital facts, makes things difficult for itself.
37. Perusal of the affidavit filed along with the supporting documents by the appellant, makes it Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 18 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
apparent that the appellant has tried to downplay and hide his actual earnings or receipts and simultaneously tried to flatten his expenditures.
38. From the Income tax return of appellant / husband and his salary slip of August 2013, it is apparent that his gross salary is Rs.82,175/, which approximately can be taken as Rs.80,000/ per month. Ld.Counsel for the appellant has claimed that after compulsory deductions, his net salary is Rs.60,000/ per month only. This fact is belied, on perusal of his salary slip which reveals that he apart from compulsory provident fund deduction, is making voluntary deduction towards "provident fund" to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ per month. The same thus has to be counted while considering his monthly income and by no stretch of imagination, the same is to be deducted from his gross salary.
39. Though, it is alleged by the complainant / wife that appellant has substantial share holding and earns through dividend and interest on bank deposits. Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 19 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
However, on this account, perusal of his bank record entails that though he is getting some receipts qua the same, but that is not substantial to be given that much weightage to consider any increase of the receipts of the appellant over and above his salary income.
40. Considering the records placed by him along with his affidavit and taking out the voluntary deductions towards provident fund, it is clear that he is getting about 69,000/ to Rs.70,000/ per month as net salary and not Rs.60,000/ as claimed by him.
41. No doubt, as per the orders dated 17.07.2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court, appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs.9 lacs, which he infact had deposited. However, the bank records submitted by the appellant reveals that he has taken loan of Rs. 6,50,000/ from ICICI Bank and Rs.5 lacs from Axis Bank, which makes the total loan amount to be Rs.11,50,000/. Appellant has failed to explain at this stage as to why he has taken an additional loan of Rs.2,50,000/, if at all, he was compelled to take it to Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 20 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
comply with the directions of the Court. Further, it is apparent that this loan was taken by him in May and June 2013, whereas the court order is of July 2013. Therefore, appellant has failed to corelate the said loan with the directions of Court Order passed on a bail application filed by him, in FIR No.417/2012 of PS Dabri.
42. Apart from that, appellant has further tried to conceal a vital information in his affidavit. He with respect to a flat in Noida owned by him, did mention that the same was sold by him, for complying with directions of the Court to deposit the amount of Rs.9 lacs. Firstly, he has concealed the exact amount received by him for disposing off said flat. Secondly, if he for depositing this amount of Rs.9 lacs in court had disposed off the said flat in Noida, then what was the necessity with him to take loan from the bank. He has failed to explain that rather tried to downplay his capital gains / receipts on one hand and tried to raise his expenditure towards EMIs for repayment of loan, under the garb of compliance of orders of Hon'ble High Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 21 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
Court. The reasons are obvious.
43. This approach of the appellant is against the "Principles of Equity and Fair Justice". It rather seems to be very conscious, calculated and deliberate omissions.
44. If the facts stated by the appellant in his reply to the complaint and the affidavit filed by him regarding his liabilities and expenditure is considered as such, then it reveals that he is spending more than his earnings. Which cannot be the case.
45. It is mentioned by him that after deductions of EMIs from his net salary, he is left with Rs.32,727/ per month. From this amount as per him, he requires to give Rs.12,000/ per month to his parents ; Rs.7,000/ towards rent ; Rs.4,714/ towards EMI of a personal loan and Rs.6,583/ towards the premium of insurance policies. Apart from that, he stated in his affidavit that he owns a Swift Dezire for which he is incurring a monthly expenditure of Rs.4500/ towards fuel Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 22 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
consumption. If all these expenses are added, then total comes to Rs.34,797/, which is much more than what as per him, he is left with, from his salary. These expenditure so claimed by him are apart from his usual kitchen and subsistence expenses.
46. This fact itself reveals that appellant is trying to oversize his expenditure, in order to avoid his obligation and liability to maintain his estranged wife.
Thus, by concealing vital informations regarding the receipts, appellant is making things difficult for himself.
47. No doubt, appellant had raised a plea that his wife by working in a parlour, is in a position to maintain herself. However, at this stage there was nothing before Ld.Trial Court to accept the contention of appellant, as has been rightly observed by Ld.Trial Court in the impugned order. More particularly, when there is nothing in the pleadings that during the period husband wife stayed together, wife Ms.Rashmi was working in any parlour either in Mumbai or Ranchi. Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 23 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
48. In absence of any such document regarding her being gainfully employed or having any professional qualification, I am of the opinion that Ld.Trial Court has rightly observed that complainant wife is unable to maintain herself. There is no denying the fact that after marriage, to maintain his wife is the responsibility and liability of the husband and not of the parents of the wife.
49. Further, at the stage of fixing interim maintenance, Ld.Trial Court had to do little guesswork on the basis of material before it, in the form of affidavits of the parties, supporting documents and the photographs of their goods times to ascertain the type of lifestyle they were accustomedto, at the time of parting their ways.
50. In my considered opinion and on the basis of material before Ld.Trial Court, it had rightly and properly fixed the interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/ per month. The same by no stretch of imagination can be termed as exorbitant or excessive, in view of the Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 24 of 26 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
position of the parties to the petition.
51. Even the precedent relied upon by Ld.Counsel for the appellant titled "Manmohan Kohli vs. Natasha Kohli" bearing C.M.(M) No.1019/2010 ; decided on 06.02.2013 by Hon'ble High Court, does not support the case of appellant. In said case also, Hon'ble High Court while laying down, list of some of the factors which are required to be considered, had stated that at this stage, court has to guess the income of the spouses, to arrive at a figure for grant of interim maintenance.
52. In the present case, on the basis of material on record, I do not see that the guess work of Ld.Trial Court, was in anyway arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical, rather it was based on the documents on record including the photographs of the happier moments depicting the lifestyle of the parties.
53. Consequently, I do not find any merits in this appeal calling for any interference in the impugned order dated 16.07.2014, passed by Ld.Trial Court. Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 25 of 26
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 01 / 2014 [Devendra Prasad Sinha vs. State & Anr.] Dated : 12th September 2014.
54. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
55. Before parting with this order, I wish to add that nothing mentioned hereinabove, shall tantamount to any expression on merits of the case, as the same have been observed only for disposal of the present appeal.
56. The Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
57. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court of 12th day of September, 2014.
(KANWAL JEET ARORA) SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (PC ACT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Crl.Appeal No.:01 / 2014 Page 26 of 26