Delhi District Court
Amarjeet Kadian vs Simran Kadian @ Geeta on 18 April, 2026
Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA NO.:- 101/2022
UNIQUE CASE ID NO.:- DLWT01-004299-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Amarjeet Kadian
S/o Sh. Virender Singh
R/o VPO Beri, near DAV School,
Pana Bethan, District Jhajjar,
Haryana-124201 .... Appellant
VERSUS
Simran Kadian @ Geeta
D/o Late Sh. Manohar Lal Nandwani,
R/o Flat No. 749, Pocket-A,
Loknayakpuram, Bakkarwala,
West District, Delhi-110041 .... Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 09/05/2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 09/04/2026
Date of judgment : 18/04/2026
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18
18:03:19 +0530
CA No. 101/2022 Page No.1 of 25
Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "D.V. Act") filed by the appellant against the order dated 23/11/2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Aakanksha, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-05), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MC No.156/2019 titled as "Simran Kadian @ Geeta Vs. Amarjeet Kadian & Ors."
In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed to set-aside the impugned order dated 23/11/2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and to stay execution petitions filed by the respondent herein in respect of impugned order dated 23/11/2020.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present appeal as stated in the present appeal are that by way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 23/11/2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby Ld. Trial Court has erroneously allowed the application u/s. 23 DV Act without appreciating the true facts and law applicable to the case. Impugned order is without any reasoning and Ld. Trial Court has not taken into consideration essential ingredients of the maintenance. On 18/01/2020, Ld. Trial Court had closed the right of the appellant to file reply and income affidavit despite the submission made by the appellant that he is suffering from severe mental trauma and depression. Appellant and respondent were known to each Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:03:26 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.2 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta other since long time and they fell in love with each other. After some time, appellant and respondent decided to marry with each other but the appellant came to know that the respondent is already married with another man and having children from that marriage. When the appellant confronted the respondent in this regard, she assured the appellant that she wants to divorce her husband and wants to marry the appellant only and the appellant believed on her words. Appellant had agreed to marry the respondent subject to condition that she would take divorce from her husband and show him related documents and appellant had given her considerable time period of about 4-5 years to take divorce. Even after waiting for considerable period of time, when the respondent did not show the divorce papers, appellant realized that the respondent is making a fool of him. When the appellant's family started pressurizing him for marriage, the appellant told the respondent that as she is still married to someone else, so, he cannot wait any more and both should move on in their life. Appellant was also approached by one person namely Pawan @ Ranbir, who told the appellant that the respondent has been in contact/relation with him for a long time and she has been forcing him to take divorce from his wife. When the appellant had asked some proof from Pawan @ Ranbir, then he had shown some objectionable chats between him and the respondent. Thereafter, appellant had checked the phone of the respondent wherein he found same objectionable chats as well as some photos of respondent with Pawan @ Ranbir as well as an another man namely Ranjeet. As the considerable time has already been passed, moreover, the appellant also came to know about her several flings, he decided to marry Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:03:31 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.3 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta someone else, whom his parents had chosen for him. When the respondent came to know about the same, she got furious and started to threaten the appellant with dire consequences and also threatened either to marry her or she would implicate him and his family members in false cases. Girl child about whom the respondent is talking was not adopted by the appellant and the said child was from her previous husband as told by the respondent and due to the said reason, respondent has not annexed any marriage proof or adoption proof with her complaint u/s. 12 DV Act. When Ld. Trial Court had asked the respondent to place on record the marriage proof, she had filed some morphed photos as marriage proof. Respondent had also not annexed any document in respect of adoption of the child by the appellant. Appellant got married to another girl namely Lata on 30/09/2019. Respondent has filed the false and frivolous case just to harass the appellant as he got married to some other girl. Appellant is suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder-Manic Depression (BPAD-m) and he is taking treatment of the same since long. Neither the respondent was married to the appellant nor girl child namely Shivani was ever adopted by them. All the allegations of the respondent in her complaint regarding dowry, marriage expenses and incidents of domestic violence are false, incorrect and wrong as the respondent never shared any shared household with the appellant or any of his family members. Respondent has procured the order on false assertions and suppression of material facts. Respondent is running a beauty parlour and she failed to disclose her true income from the same. Appellant has not filed any other or similar petition before any other Court.Digitally signed by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:03:37 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.4 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
3. Appellant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present appeal.
Grounds of appeal- Impugned order is contrary to the principles of law and facts. Respondent has not approached the Ld. Trial Court with clean hands and she failed to disclose that the appellant and respondent were never married. Respondent is running a beauty parlour and she has failed to disclose her true income from the same. Respondent has failed to file supporting affidavit alongwith her complaint u/s 12 DV Act. Respondent in her complaint u/s 12 DV Act has not mentioned any details in respect of adoption of any child or filed any document in this regard. Respondent in her complaint u/s 12 DV Act nowhere mentioned any allegations related to the said child or in fact has not even mentioned the name of child. Not only the child namely Shivani, the respondent has another child as well from her wedlock and the appellant has nothing to do with any of her children. Respondent has very conveniently submitted before the Ld. Trial Court that the child Shivani was adopted by the appellant and respondent after their marriage but the respondent miserably failed to provide the detail or document to this effect. Respondent has contradicted herself and she submitted that the girl child was adopted but as a proof of adoption, she filed the forged and fabricated birth certificate wherein she herself is the mother and in the birth certificate, permanent address is mentioned as Najafgarh, Delhi. Respondent has failed to file any document relating to her claim of living in matrimonial home at Jhajjar, Haryana. Respondent has filed forged and fabricated birth certificate, Aadhaar card, school ID card and other documents.
Digitally signed by VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:03:43 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.5 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta Respondent has failed to prove her marriage with the appellant as she neither annexed any marriage photograph nor marriage card alongwith her complaint. Respondent is even confused regarding her date of marriage and in her complaint u/s 12 DV Act, it is mentioned that she got married with appellant on 05/01/2001, however, during the course of arguments on interim maintenance, it was submitted that date of marriage was 05/04/2008 and there was typographical error. Even in her evidence by way of affidavit, she again mentioned that she got married on 05/01/2001. In her complaint u/s 12 DV Act, most of the allegations of domestic violence are of the years 2014, 2016 and 2018 and as per complaint, respondent and appellant have been residing separately since 10/01/2019 but in affidavit of application u/s 23 (2) DV Act, it is mentioned that she got separated on 26/04/2013. Respondent never had any domestic relations with the appellant and any of his family members and just to file the DV complaint, she has made stories. Appellant has acquired an audio conversation between the respondent and one of her customers wherein she openly admitted that she is running a successful parlour. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled law regarding maintenance that no maintenance shall be granted to the wife, who is capable of working or is in fact working. Ld. Trial Court has failed to apply its mind before passing the impugned order. There is not even a single averment in the impugned order, which highlights the alleged domestic violence on behalf of the appellant. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is not dependent upon the appellant. Appellant is unemployed due to his mental illness but Ld. Trial Court has not sought any clarification from the appellant for being Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18
18:03:47
+0530
CA No. 101/2022 Page No.6 of 25
Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
currently employed or not. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the twin tests required to be fulfilled before passing an interim order of maintenance. Ld. Trial Court has failed to adhere the judicial discipline as the impugned order has been passed in a peculiar manner. All the averments against the appellant are false and frivolous. Impugned order has failed to appreciate the material suppression and incorrect facts placed by the respondent for seeking maintenance. Ld. Trial Court has failed to adhere the principles of natural justice as the impugned order has been passed without being heard or even giving a chance to the appellant to advance his arguments. When the impugned order was passed, neither the appellant nor his counsel was present.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present appeal, appellant had not appeared from 16/11/2022 and respondent/counsel had also not appeared since 09/12/2025 before this Court. Court notices were sent to appellant and respondent and same were received back served. Despite service of Court notices, neither parties nor their counsel had appeared before this Court. In the present case, both parties or their counsel have not addressed the arguments on the present appeal and opportunity of both the parties for arguments on the present appeal was closed vide order dated 09/04/2026 passed by this Court.
In the present appeal, since both the parties have not addressed the arguments and their opportunity for arguments on the present appeal was closed, this Court shall decide the present appeal on the basis of material available on record. Perused the material available on record.
Digitally signed by VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:03:52 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.7 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
5. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 23/11/2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
"23/11/2020 (Through VC) Present: Petitioner is present in the Court.
None for respondent.
ORDER ON INTERIM MAINTENANCE APPLICATION
1. Vide this order, the court shall decide interim maintenance relief prayed by the petitioner vide application u/s 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act").
2. The petitioner has filed the present application alleging that she got married with respondent no.1 on 05.04.2008 (as mentioned in her income affidavit stating that 05.04.2001 in the DV petition is a typographical error) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, no child was born from the said wedlock and thereafter the couple adopted a child namely Shivani, who is presently under the care and custody of petitioner, she is doing a small job in a beauty parlour, her parents gave sufficient dowry in her marriage but the respondents were not satisfied, they taunted her, beat her and tortured her as per the allegations in her petition. She has been subjected to mental and physical cruelties and harassment by the respondents and thus this petition has been filed.
3. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments of the petition and further Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:03:57 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.8 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta stated that petitioner has no source of income, whereas respondent no. 1 does a property dealing work at Jhajjar out of which he earns around Rs.35,000/- per month and is also earning rental income from three properties to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and agricultural income of more than Rs.1 lakh, their adopted daughter is aged 9 years, petitioner is residing in a rented house at Bakkarwala and claims Rs.60,000/- per month as interim maintenance for petitioner and her minor daughter.
4. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the petitioner and respondent no.1 had earlier lived in a living relationship and adopted a child and now respondent no. I has been married to another woman and he is also suffering from mental illness for which he is undergoing treatment, that right to file W.S. and reply has been closed and that he has no source of income due to his illness whereas petitioner is running a beauty parlour but that he is ready to maintain his minor daughter. In rebuttal, Ld. counsel for petitioner has refuted the contentions of respondent no. I suffering from any mental illness.
5. Heard. Perused.
6. Petitioner has filed affidavit qua her financial status.
However, respondent no.1 failed to file the same despite several opportunities given by this Court, upon which his opportunity to file the same was closed vide order dated 18.01.2020. The factum of marriage between the parties is disputed. Whereas on one hand, petitioner has stated in her DV petition that she is legally wedded wife of respondent no.1, they both got married on 05.04.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, on the other hand since right to file reply of respondent no.1 has been closed there are no written submissions on behalf of respondent no.1 on court Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:04:02 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.9 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta record but Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted during the course of arguments that petitioner and respondent no.1 had earlier lived together in a living relationship but now he is married to another person. In such a case burden is always upon the petitioner to at least prima facie prove the facts pleaded in her DV petition. In this regard, petitioner has placed on record certain photographs of her marriage with respondent no.1, she has also placed on record Aadhar Card, a school i-card and birth certificate of their daughter Shivani Kadyan wherein her father's name is mentioned as Amarjeet Singh. Also, the factum of adoption of girl child has not been disputed on behalf of respondent no. 1 during the course of arguments. Having heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and perusing the record carefully, the petitioner, from the allegations levied in her petition, prima facie appears to be "aggrieved person" as per definition in Section 2 (a) DV Act, hence entitled to interim relief.
7. The petitioner has stated in her income affidavit that she is doing job as labour in a beauty parlour and is earning Rs.5,000/- per month, her expenditure is Rs.20,000/- per month and has claimed Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance for herself from respondent no.1. In the DV petition, the petitioner has not claimed any relief qua her minor daughter but during the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioner orally prayed for interim maintenance of the minor daughter as well, which remained unopposed by Ld. counsel for respondent during the course of arguments. Hence, in interest of justice and upon admission of respondent, interim maintenance of both petitioner and her minor daughter is being decided by this order. In terms of the admission in the income affidavit and in absence of any document to prima facie prove otherwise, petitioner is deemed to be earning around Rs.5,000/- per month by doing job in a beauty Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:04:07 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.10 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta parlour,
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.1 is doing property dealing work at Jhajjar and earning Rs.35,000/- per month, additionally he also has rental income of around Rs.1 Lakh and agricultural income of more than Rs.1 Lakh. Whereas respondent no.1 during the course of arguments submitted that due to mental illness he has no source of income. No document or prima facie proof of the earning of respondent no.1 has come on record, not even his own submissions are on record due to failure on part of respondent no.1 to file a reply and income affidavit despite availing sufficient opportunity, which leads to an adverse inference against the respondent. However, there are some photocopy medical bills on record which suggests respondent no. 1 being diagnosed with Bipolar affective disorder-manic depression (BPAD(m)) which is primarily a psychological illness involving severe mood swings, for which he had been prescribed some mood stabilizers like Lithium, as per the medical bill submitted. The said bill pertains to the period of February 2019, March 2019, November 2019. But to state depression as a mental illness rendering a person incapable to act in his professional sphere would require proof. Thus, in absence of any specific medical report qua the seriousness of his illness and the impact of it upon his daily life, it cannot be altogether presumed that respondent no. 1 has no source of income at all, specifically in the light of the fact that the no specific denial has come on record, or either during the arguments qua the contention of petitioner that the respondent deals in property. Thus, taking an adverse inference respondent is deemed to be in the property dealing business. With respect to his income from other sources, petitioner has not placed on record any document to substantiate her claim as to the proposed earnings Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:04:12 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.11 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta of respondent no. 1. Hence, for the purpose of this application, respondent no. 1's monthly income is assessed to be at least Rs.35,000/- per month.
9. It is relevant to point out here the observation made in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 2004(3) AD 252, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the family income should be divided equally between all the family members entitled to maintenance with one extra portion/share being allotted to the earning spouse since extra expenses would necessarily occur.
10. In view of the above discussion, since petitioner is admittedly earning around Rs.5,000/- per month, the expenses of the minor child (i.e. Rs.7000/- per month shown in the income affidavit) shall be shared proportionately by the spouses. Thus, respondent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.4,750/-
per month as interim maintenance for petitioner and Rs. 6,000/- per month as interim maintenance for the minor daughter, thus total interim maintenance of Rs.10,750/- per month towards food, rent, clothing, household expenses and other necessary expenses all inclusive from the date of filing of the petition till the final disposal of this case. The above said interim maintenance amount shall be adjustable to the amount, if any, the petitioner or the minor daughter is getting towards maintenance of herself from the respondent no. 1 from any other proceedings.
11. Let the monthly maintenance be deposited in the account of the petitioner on or before 10th of each month from the date of filing of the application and some arrears be also deposited every month. Petitioner shall be entitled to claim maintenance till further orders or remarriage and the minor child shall be entitled to claim maintenance till further orders Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:04:16 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.12 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta or till she is legally entitled to claim the same. Arrears of maintenance be cleared within six months from today. The observation made in the order shall not tantamount to any findings on merits of this case.
12. List of witnesses with evidence by way of affidavit be filed by the petitioner with advance copy to the Counsel for the respondent.
13. Put up for CE for 08.02.2021.
Copy of order be provided to both the parties through email/whatsapp for compliance.
(Aakanksha) MM (Mahila Court-05), West , THC, Delhi/23.11.2020"
6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
(a) The complainant/petitioner (respondent herein) had filed the complaint/ petition u/s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 D.V. Act for maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month with other prayers alongwith application u/s. 23 D.V. Act against the respondents and the aforesaid complaint/petition u/s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 D.V. Act is pending before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the aforesaid complaint/ petition u/s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 D.V. Act of the complainant/petitioner, it is mentioned that the marriage of the complainant/petitioner Simran Kadian @ Geeta and respondent Amarjeet Kadian was solemnized on 05/04/2001 (complainant/petitioner in her affidavit Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:04:21 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.13 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta of assets, income and expenditure has mentioned the date of marriage as 05/04/2008 and also mentioned that in D.V. petition, due to typographical error, date of marriage has been mentioned as 05/04/2001) as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi and out of the said wedlock, no child was born and thereafter, both the couple had adopted a child namely Shivani and she is under the care and custody of the complainant/petitioner. It is also mentioned that the complainant/petitioner was subjected to harassment and mental as well as physical torture/cruelty by the respondents. It is also mentioned that the complainant/petitioner has no means of survival and having limited source of income to run the beauty parlour and she is also dependent upon her mother and brother. It is also mentioned that complainant/petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 is liable to pay the maintenance to the complainant and her child. It is also mentioned that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents and she is aggrieved person as per D.V. Act.
(b) Domestic Incident Report was called from the Protection Officer and same was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
(c) Vide order dated 29/04/2019 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, respondent no. 2 to 4 were dropped from the array of the parties.
(d) Respondent no.1 had not filed written statement/reply to the complaint/petition of the complainant/petitioner and opportunity to file the reply of the respondent was closed vide order dated 18/01/2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.Digitally signed by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:04:26 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.14 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
(e) In the said case, affidavit of assets, income and expenditure was filed by the complainant/petitioner Simran Kadian @ Geeta.
In the said case, affidavit of assets, income and expenditure was not filed by the respondent Amarjeet Kadian.
(f) Vide impugned order dated 23/11/2020 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, respondent was directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.4,750/- per month to the complainant/petitioner and interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month for the minor daughter (total interim maintenance of Rs.10,750/- per month) towards food, rent, clothing, household expenses and other necessary expenses all inclusive from the date of filing of the petition till the final disposal of the case.
7. Law relating to determining the quantum of maintenance was elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rajnesh V. Neha" {(2021) 2 SCC 324} and it was held that following factors should be taken into consideration for determining the amount of maintenance :-
"1. Status of the parties
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant
3.The independent income and property of the claimant
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:04:31 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.15 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation
11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s 24 of the Act
12. Age and employment of the parties
13. Duration of marriage
14. Financial needs and resources of the parties
15. Employability of wife
16. Maintenance of minor children
17. Serious disability or ill-health of a spouse or children
18. Right to residence."
8. It is well settled law that the objective of granting interim/ permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of the marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse. It is also well settled that it is the duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and children.
It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:04:37 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.16 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta as "Anju Garg & Anr. V. Deepak Kumar Garg" {2022 SCC Online SC 1314} that :-
"........The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute..."
It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rajnesh V. Neha" {(2021) 2 SCC 324} that:-
".....An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash. 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 obligation for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court."
It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Shamima Farooqui V. Shahid Khan" {(2015) 5 SCC 705} that:-
".....Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:04:45 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.17 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right....
....... This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning."
It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena & Ors." {(2015) 6 SCC 353} that:-
"In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."
9. In the complaint/petition u/s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 D.V. Act, it is alleged by the complainant/petitioner that she was subjected to mental as well as physical torture/ cruelty by the appellant and his family members and she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband (appellant) and his family members. However, the allegations of domestic violence have been denied by the appellant.
It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant and respondent fell in love with each other but their marriage was not solemnized. Factum regarding marriage of the appellant with the respondent has been denied/disputed by the appellant in the present appeal. On the other hand, it is Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18
18:04:50
+0530
CA No. 101/2022 Page No.18 of 25
Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
the contention of the respondent herein before the Ld. Trial Court that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 05/04/2008 and respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant. Respondent herein had filed photocopies of photographs of her marriage with the appellant and she has also filed photocopies of Aadhaar card, school I-card and birth certificate of Shivani Kadian before the Ld. Trial Court wherein name of father of Shivani Kadian has been mentioned as Amarjeet Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that during the course of arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the respondent no.1 that the petitioner and respondent no.1 had earlier lived together in a live-in relationship.
Factum regarding marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been denied/disputed by the appellant but counsel for the appellant had admitted before the Ld. Trial Court that the appellant and respondent had earlier lived together in a live-in relationship. It is admitted fact that the appellant and respondent were in domestic relationship.
Definition of 'domestic relationship' has been defined in Section 2(f) D.V. Act. As per Section 2(f) D.V. Act, "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family".
It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent were in domestic relationship. As per admission made on behalf of the appellant before Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:04:55 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.19 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta the Ld. Trial Court, it is clear that the appellant and respondent were in relationship in the nature of marriage.
Even otherwise, the factum regarding marriage of appellant and respondent is matter of trial. Hence, contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
10. It is also the contention of the appellant that the child Shivani Kadian was not adopted by the appellant. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent herein before the Ld. Trial Court that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 05/04/2008 and out of the said wedlock, no child was born and thereafter, both the couple had adopted a child namely Shivani and she is under the care and custody of the complainant/petitioner. Respondent herein had filed photocopies of photographs of her marriage with the appellant and she has also filed photocopies of Aadhaar card, school I-card and birth certificate of Shivani Kadian before the Ld. Trial Court wherein name of father of Shivani Kadian has been mentioned as Amarjeet Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that during the course of arguments, factum of adoption of girl child has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent no.1.
Factum regarding adoption of girl child Shivani Kadian has been denied/disputed by the appellant in the present appeal. However, factum regarding adoption of girl child Shivani Kadian was admitted on behalf of the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. As per admission made on behalf of the Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:05:01 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.20 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta appellant before the Ld. Trial Court, it is clear that the girl child namely Shivani Kadian was adopted. Hence, contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
11. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent is running a beauty parlour and she has failed to disclose her true income from the same and she is capable to maintain herself and minor daughter. On the other hand, the respondent in her affidavit of assets, income and expenditure filed before the Ld. Trial Court, has stated that she is doing the job in beauty parlour and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Factum regarding earning of Rs.5000/- per month by the respondent herein has been admitted by her in her affidavit of assets, income and expenditure. Appellant has not filed any document before this Court and before Ld. Trial Court to show that the respondent is earning more than Rs.5000/- per month. Factum regarding monthly income of Rs.5000/- of the respondent herein was duly considered by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order. There is nothing on the record to show that at the time of passing the impugned order and at present, the respondent was/is having sufficient means to maintain herself and her minor daughter. Even otherwise, the aforesaid facts are matter of trial. In view of the same, the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
12. It is the contention of the appellant that he is suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder-Manic Depression (BPAD-m) and he is taking Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18 18:05:05 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.21 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta treatment of the same since long and he is unemployed due to his mental illness.
In the present case, the appellant has not filed any document to show that he was/ is suffering from any permanent physical disability preventing him from earning his livelihood. Appellant has not filed his affidavit of assets, income and expenditure before the Ld. Trial Court showing his income and movable/immovable properties. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant is not having sufficient means and source of income to maintain the respondent and minor daughter. Hence, the appellant cannot avoid his liability to pay the interim maintenance to the respondent and minor daughter. In view of the same, the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
13. It is well settled law that at initial stage, only prima-facie case has to be seen. Prima-facie on the basis of pleadings of the complainant/ petitioner and Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection Officer, it can be presumed that the appellant subjected the respondent to domestic violence. Complainant/petitioner in the complaint/petition u/s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 D.V. Act has prayed an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and minor daughter and she has also prayed other reliefs.
14. In the present case, on or before the date of passing the impugned order, both the parties had not filed any documentary evidence pertaining to the income of the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court.
Digitally signed by VIJAYVIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:05:11 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.22 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh case (supra) that if the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. It was also held that some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
Appellant had not filed his affidavit of assets, income and expenditure before the Ld. Trial Court showing his income and movable/ immovable properties. It is mentioned in the complaint/petition u/s. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 D.V. Act that the appellant herein is doing property dealing work and getting Rs.35,000/- per month and he is having FD and sufficient funds in bank accounts as well as three properties as well as rental income of Rs.1 Lakh and agricultural income of Rs.1 Lakh.
Appellant is an able-bodied person and he is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain the respondent and minor daughter. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant was/ is suffering from any permanent physical disability preventing him from earning his livelihood. In the absence of any evidence in this regard, the appellant cannot avoid his liability to pay the maintenance to the respondent and minor daughter. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant is not having sufficient means and source of income to maintain the respondent and minor daughter.
In the absence of any credible evidence pertaining to the income of the appellant, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the appellant. Ld. Trial Court has assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.18
18:05:17
+0530
CA No. 101/2022 Page No.23 of 25
Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta
Rs.35,000/- per month. Ld. Trial Court has rightly awarded the interim maintenance of Rs.4750/- per month to the respondent and interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of the case.
In view of the status of the parties, standard of living, reasonable wants of the complainant/petitioner and minor daughter, advance age of the complainant/petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.4750/- per month to the respondent and interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the minor daughter are just and reasonable. The aforesaid interim maintenance amount of Rs.4750/- per month to the respondent and interim maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to the minor daughter are neither excessive nor oppressive.
15. The scope of appeal u/s. 29 D.V. Act has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case titled as "Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti V. State of Maharashtra & Anr." (Criminal Writ Petition No.2218/2007 decided on 16/09/2008) and it was held that :-
"An appeal will also lie against orders passed under sub section 1 and sub section 2 of the section 23 of the said Act which are passed by the learned Magistrate. However, while dealing with an appeal against the order passed under section 23 of the said Act, the Appellate Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate. The appellate Court will interfere only if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Court has ignored settled principles of law regulating Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.18 18:05:21 +0530 CA No. 101/2022 Page No.24 of 25 Amarjeet Kadian Vs. Simran Kadian @ Geeta grant or refusal of interim relief."
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interim maintenance. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
16. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present appeal u/s. 29 D.V. Act of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Announced in the open Court SHANKAR Date: 2026.04.18 18:05:28 on 18/04/2026 +0530 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CA No. 101/2022 Page No.25 of 25