Delhi District Court
Ms. Eesha vs Mr. Siraspal Singh on 2 February, 2017
Criminal Appeal No.1202/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. : 1202/2016
Under Section : 12 of D.V. Act
Police Station : GTB Enclave
CC No. : V-234/2015
Unique I.D. No. : 44819/16
In the matter of :-
1. Ms. EESHA
D/o Sh. Siraspal Singh
R/o 125-B, F.F.,
Pocket-F, GTB Enclave,
Opposite GTB Hospital,
Delhi 110093
2. Ms. AYUSHI
D/o Sh. Siraspal Singh
R/o 125-B, F.F.,
Pocket-F, GTB Enclave,
Opposite GTB Hospital,
Delhi 110093
..............Appellants
VERSUS
Mr. SIRASPAL SINGH
S/o Sh. Kali Ram
Working as S.D.E.
(Staff no. JE-5019),
Mahanagar Telephone Nagar Ltd.
G.M. Unit (Central)
Office at C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi
..............Respondent
Date of Institution : 14.09.2016
Date of receiving the case in this court : 15.09.2016
Date of reserving order : 23.01.2017
Page 1 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.1202/2016
Date of pronouncement : 02.02.2017
Decision : Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 24.06.2016, passed by trial court in a case titled as Ms Eesha & Anr. vs. Siraspal Singh, bearing CC No.V-234/15, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Vide impugned order, the trial court directed respondent no. 1 (respondent herein) to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, to each of the petitioners (appellants herein) for their maintenance from date of order till disposal of main application.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that petitioners are daughters of respondent, who filed an application u/s 12 of the Act, thereby making several allegations of domestic violence against him. In the application, appellants claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs.60,000/- per month. They also filed an application for interim maintenance, thereby claiming same amount as interim maintenance. Vide impugned order, trial court granted interim maintenance to both petitioners in the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, from the date of order till disposal of main application.
3. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, appellants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds :-
● That the maintenance was not granted from the date of filing of application, without giving any specific reason for the same. ● That ld. MM while passing the impugned judgment, did not take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. ● That ld. MM while passing the impugned order, did not appreciate the fact that the respondent had concealed his true income from the court. FINDINGS :-Page 2 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1202/2016
4. Ld. counsel for petitioners submitted that he confined his grievance that interim maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing of application u/s 12 of the Act. However, the trial court passed order to pay such maintenance from the date of order. Ld. counsel submitted that such order has prejudiced the petitioners as they had been entitled to get maintenance at least from the date of application. Ld. counsel referred to case laws cited as Damanreet Kaur vs. Indermeet Juneja & Anr., 2013(1)JCC 306, High Court of Delhi and Seema Seth vs. Nishith Seth, 2016(1)JCC 75, High Court of Delhi, wherein maintenance was granted from the date of application.
5. Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in such directions of the trial court and the case laws referred by ld. counsel for petitioners, do not say that it is mandatory to grant maintenance from the date of application.
6. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the interim maintenance was not granted from the date of application. Maintenance is granted to the applicants as subsistence allowance, so that the applicants are able to lead same standard of life as enjoyed by the payer/non-applicant. Therefore, until and unless there are some specific reasons, maintenance should be passed from the date of such application being filed before the court.
7. The impugned order does not refer to any specific reason due to which the maintenance was not granted from the date of application. If the trial court found petitioners to be entitled for interim maintenance, then it goes without saying that petitioners required such maintenance at least from the date of moving their application before the court. Therefore, I do find that the impugned order requires to be modified. Accordingly, appeal is Page 3 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1202/2016 allowed and it is directed that both petitioners shall be paid interim maintenance from the date of filing of application. Respondent herein shall make payment of arrears of maintenance within a period of three months to the petitioners.
8. Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court with TCR.
File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 02.02.2017 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) (This order contains 4 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 4 of 4 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi