Delhi District Court
Taruna Das vs Sanjeev Kumar on 19 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 131/2025
PS- Govind Puri
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
1. Taruna Das
W/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar
R/o 55-D, Pocket A-3, Everest Apartment
Kalkaji Extn, New Delhi-110019.
2. Master Abhishikt Cyril
S/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar & Smt. Taruna Das
Through Smt. Taruna Das
being mother & natural guardian
R/o 55-D, Pocket A-3, Everest Apartment
Kalkaji Extn, New Delhi-110019
.... Appellants
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Shri Satpal Cyril
R/o C-3, 1906, 19th Floor
Supertech Eco Village - 2
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar
Uttar Pradesh - 201301.
Also At
HCL Technologies
Sec - 144, NSL Techzone, Plot No. 8
Sec-144, Noida - 201304 Uttar Pradesh
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.04.2024
Date of Arguments : 11.08.2025
Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2025
Decision : Appeal Dismissed.
Impugned Order Stands Upheld.
CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
1. This is a criminal appeal U/Sec 29 of the Protection Protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) by the complainant/ appellant Taruna Das against the order dated 17.03.2025 (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT Case No. 2900/2024 titled as " Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar".
2. Vide aforesaid impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has disposed off the application u/sec. 19(1)(b) of PWDV Act filed by the complainant, by directing the respondent no. 1/ husband of the complainant to pay rent of Rs. 15000/- per month to the complainant.
3. In order to avoid any confusion, both the parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with which they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present appeal as mentioned in appeal are as follows :-
"That marriage of the complainant and respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 17.11.2010 according to the Christian rites and customs, at Delhi. It is stated that the parents of the complainant have spent huge amount in the said marriage beyond their capacity and as per the demand of the respondent for the happiness of complainant. After the CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 2 of 11 marriage, the complainant was dutiful and never gave any chance to the respondent of any complaint but after sometime, the behaviour of the respondents had changed towards the complainant and respondent/ husband have started demanding money from the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant from the very first day of marriage started staying at H. No. 44B, Pocket A3, Everest Apartment, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi in the shared household as a member of the joint family alongwith other respondents. Thereafter, due to non- fulfilment of the said demand respondent/ husband on various occasions, beaten the complainant mercilessly and tortured her physically as well as mentally. It is further stated that in September 2012, respondent no. 1/ husband convinced the complainant to buy a house of their own at Noida and when the complainant enquired about the funds for the same, respondent no. 1/ husband informed her that if the house is bought jointly than they can easily get housing loan. Thereafter, respondent no. 1/ husband pressurized her to get some money from her parents and relatives and therefore the complainant had arranged a sum of Rs. 2,32,000/- from her parents, relatives and pooled in her savings and booked a 2 BHK house with Supertech, Eco Village-2, Greater Noida in the joint names of the complainant and respondent/ husband, which house was priced at Rs. 29,80,928/- and they had jointly availed housing loan from HDFC. It is further stated that when the complainant could not tolerate the CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 3 of 11 physical torture, she gave some amounts to respondent/ husband to save herself, after arranging the same from her parents and also by taking personal loan of Rs. 1 lakh from HDFC i.e. (i) Rs. 25,000/- on 05.01.2017; (ii) Rs. 36,000/- on 06.02.2017; (iii) Rs. 30,000/- on 05.04.2017;
(iv) Rs. 22,000/- on 17.04.2017; (v) Rs. 22,000/- on 19.04.2017; (vi) Rs. 31,400/- on 06.05.2017 & (vii) Rs.
20,000/- on 04.08.2017. It is further stated that in September 2015, respondent no. 1/ husband alongwith complainant and their child shifted to a rented house bearing no. TA-84/5, at Tughlakabad Ext. New Delhi and thereafter taking the possession of aforesaid Flat, shifted to in the said Flat at Noida. It is further stated that since then, the entire education expenses including but not limited to tuition fees, day care, fees for Abacus classes, cost of books, stationery etc. etc. are being paid by the complainant exclusively and the respondent/ husband categorically refused to contribute even a single penny for the educational expenses of his son. It is further stated that in September 2020 M/s Supertech handed over possession of the aforesaid Flat at Noida and respondent/ husband alongwith complainant and their son shifted to the said Flat. It is further stated that the complainant is unable to maintain herself and her child without help of her husband. Complainant and her child were subjected to the physical, verbal and emotional abuse as well as economic abuse committed by all respondents including her husband. Hence, the present complaint case."
CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 4 of 11
5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties on the application u/sec. 19(1)(b) of the PWDV Act, moved by the complainant, has disposed off the same by directing the respondent no. 1/ husband to pay the rent of Rs. 15000/- per month to the respondent/ wife, vide its impugned order dated 17.03.2025.
6. Feeling aggrieved by impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Ld. Trial Court, complainant has challenged the said order by way of present appeal on the following grounds :-
A. That impugned order is bad in law, unsustainable and contrary to the aims and objects of the PWDVA and is therefore liable to be set aside.
B. That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that the aforesaid shared household is admittedly jointly owned by the appellant no.1 and the respondent.
C. That Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in denying the relief u/s19(1)
(b) of PWDVA to the appellants by ignoring the fact that complainant being a young single mother and her son being a minor child have greater need of residing in a locality with gated security and more safety than the respondent who is residing all alone in the entire shared household and using the same for illegal and immoral purposes.
D. That Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate that section 19(1) of PWDVA gives various alternatives to Ld. Trial Court to pass a residence order in favour of the aggrieved i.e. from 19(1)(a) to 19(1)(f). The relief sought by the appellant was under section 19(1)(b). Pertinently section 19(1)(a) to (e) of the PWDVA, while stating the relief which could be granted to the aggrieved, does not qualify the same. That in this case, there were no specific CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 5 of 11 mitigating or special circumstances in favour of the respondent to deny the relief sought by appellant in her application u/s 19(1)(b). E. That Ld. Trial Court gravely erred in failing to distinguish between the powers enjoyed by the Ld. Trial Court u/s 23(1) & u/s 23(2) of the PWDVA. While u/s 23(1), Ld. Trial court has unfettered powers to "pass such interim order as he deems just and proper" thereby expanding the scope of powers u/s 23(1) of the Act provided other party has been served a notice for it. F. That Ld. Trial Court while disposing off the application has gravely erred in ignoring the provision u/s 19(1)(f) which states "directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require."
7. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, Ld. Counsel for complainant/ appellants has argued that the complainant has suffered domestic violence at the hands of the respondents. It has been argued that since the complainant is not financially sound to take care herself and her child, her husband who is respondent no. 1, be directed to remove himself from the aforesaid shared household or he may be directed to pay a sum of Rs 30,000/- per month as rent to the appellants/ complainant in place of Rs 15,000/- pm. Ld. Counsel for complainant has also relied upon the judgments titled as (1) Kaushalya Vs. Mukesh Jain (2020-17-SCC-822) ; (2) Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 AIR SC 66621 (3) Sara C Dubey Vs. Ashish Dubey, 2020 275 DLT 184 (4) Samr V Bhardwaj Vs. Nandita Samir Bhardwaj 2017 AIR SC 2713 and (5) Brahan Pal Arya Vs. Babita Arya 2009 113 DRJ 624.
CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 6 of 11
8. On other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/ husband has argued that the present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed. It has been argued that the respondent has never shied away from his responsibility towards the complainant. It has been further argued that present appeal is not maintainable in its current form as it seeks to challenge an interim order passed under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 and Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion in granting interim monetary relief under Section 19(1)(f) read with Section 23(1), and no perversity or illegality has been demonstrated in the impugned order. It has been argued that the application u/sec. 19(1)(b) is still pending final adjudication, and the relief granted by the Ld. Trial Court is interim in nature. It has been argued that shared household in question was acquired in the year 2012, and the entire burden of the housing loan (EMI) has consistently been borne by the respondent/ husband alone. The monthly EMI obligation is approximately 30,000/- and remains ongoing, with a substantial balance tenure of 10-12 years and the respondent continues to shoulder this financial liability without any contribution from the appellant. It has been argued that complainant is an educated and professionally qualified woman, presently employed with a reputed multinational corporation, namely Hilti India Pvt. Ltd. where she draws a monthly income of approximately ₹ 1,00,000/-. This includes performance-linked quarterly incentives and festive bonuses and her financial independence is well established and undermines the narrative of any economic dependence or urgency. It has been argued that respondent resides in the shared household along with his elderly CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 7 of 11 parents, one of whom is a cancer survivor requiring regular treatment and care and the medical expenses and other household needs of both parents are being managed entirely by the respondent/ husband. It has further been argued that additionally, the unmarried sister of respondent/ husband is also residing in the same household, and all her expenses are borne by the respondent. It has been prayed that the grounds of appeal are vague in nature and present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by respective counsels of the parties and have carefully perused record including Trial Court Record.
10. Section 20 of the DV Act stipulates that a Magistrate hearing an application under Section 12 of the DV Act may direct Respondent to pay certain monetary relief to the aggrieved person. It further delineates the contours of monetary relief that is to be paid to aggrieved person, including the criteria governing it as well as the manner in which the payment is to be made. For the ease of comprehension, Section 20 of the DV Act has been reproduced as under :-
"20. Monetary reliefs (1)While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent 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 include, but not limited to,
(a)the loss of earnings;
CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 8 of 11
(b)the medical expenses;
(c)the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d)the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.
(2)The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed."
11. The term "shared household" has been defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. As per the interpretation rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, has held that a wife is not entitled to claim residence in the house of her in-laws if the house does not belong to the husband and is not a rented accommodation taken in his name. The Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that the definition of "shared household" under Section 2(s) does not imply any and every place where wife has lived after marriage.
12. During course of the arguments, both the parties have referred to their income affidavits and bank statements, filed on record. Perusal of the same shows that both the parties are well qualified and the complainant is earning Rs. 61000/- per month approximately and on the other hand, respondent / husband is getting salary of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month approximately. Further, the complainant has stated in his CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 9 of 11 complaint as well as income affidavit that she is taken Housing Loan of Rs. 28 Lacs for which EMI of Rs. 28048/- is being paid by her. However, perusal of the record shows that to substantiate her claim, she has neither filed any proof regarding availing of home loan nor has filed any proof that the said EMI is being deducted from her account.
13. So far as the interim relief to the complainant is concerned, vide order dated 16.07.2024 passed by Ld. Judge Family Court No. 2, South- East District, the respondent has already been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10000/- as ad-interim measure to the complainant by 7 th of each month w.e.f. August 2024. Further, vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, respondent/ husband has already been directed to contribute 50% of the school fees of the minor child as well as 50% of arrears of school fees of the minor child which has already been paid by the complainant. Thus, the monetary relief and educational expenses have already been awarded in favour of the complainant.
14. In the present case, prima facie the material available on record, does not establish that property/ flat as claimed by complainant, is acquired jointly or as shared household by the complainant with the respondent/ husband or that she is paying the EMI towards the loan amount. Further, the aforesaid quantum can only be decided once the matter is finally decided between the parties and the complainant shall have every right to claim her compensation and reimburse it thereafter. The Ld. Trial Court has judiciously opted for a balanced remedy by granting interim rent vide impugned order.
CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 10 of 11
15. As regards the reliance placed upon by complainant/ appellant on certain case laws, the same are distinguishable on facts and circumstances as in those cases, no independent monetary relief or educational expenses had been awarded to the complainant. Therefore, said case laws are of no help to the cause of the complainant/ appellant.
16. In view of the aforesaid appreciation, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has carefully dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties in its impugned order and I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.03.2025. Hence, I conclude that Ld. Trial Court had passed the impugned order legally and correctly. It was not perverse in nature and needs no interference. Present Appeal, therefore stands dismissed. Impugned order dated 17.03.2025, passed by Ld. Trial Court stands upheld.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
Announced In The CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.19
Open Court Today 16:01:40 +0530
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi
19.08.2025
CA No. 131/2025 Taruna Das Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page no. 11 of 11