Delhi District Court
Hemlata vs Satyendra on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
CA/358/2023
DLST01012679-2023
HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA
Hemlata,
R/o H. no. 112A, 4th Floor,
Ward No. 9, Flat No. D-2,
Kishan Garh, Mehrauli,
New Delhi. ...Appellant/Wife
VERSUS
Satyendra
S/o Late Sh. Deshraj
R/o 316/4D, Street No. 3,
Indra Park, Palam Colony,
New Delhi ...Respondent/Husband
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 21.12.2023
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 19.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the present appeal filed under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter referred as "DV Act") against the impugned order dated 28.11.2023, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Mahila Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in case bearing CC No. CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 1 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:54:09 +0530 14966/2019 titled as "Hemlata Vs. Satyendra & Ors", filed under provisions of Domestic Violence Act, whereby Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the application u/s 23 DV Act for grant of interim relief.
2. Brief facts may be taken note of: A complaint under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was filed by appellant/wife against the respondent/husband stating therein that she married with the respondent/husband on 17.07.2005 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children namely Diksha (DOB-18.09.2006) and son namely Arnav Singh (DOB-30.01.2012) were born out the said wedlock. It is stated that in her matrimonial, she was subjected to immense mental and physical, emotional and economic abuse. It is stated that on 09.04.2018, appellant/wife was ousted from the matrimonial house and was not permitted to meet her children. Respondent/husband lodged a false missing complaint of the appellant/wife, followed by Habeas Corpus petiton before the Hon'ble High Court, where appellant/wife refused to join the respondent, owing to acts of cruelty suffered by her. It is stated that respondent/husband under conspiracy and taking advantage of the depressed mental condition of the appellant filed first motion petition of mutual divorce. Appellant filed petition seeking custody of the minor children and also a complaint with CAW Cell, Saket. It is stated that respondent/husband is working as CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 2 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:54:16 +0530 Sub-Inspector in ITBP and is eaning Rs. 70,000/- per month and has left the appellant at the verge of starvation. The appellant prayed for maintenance for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month along with other reliefs of residence rights etc. Along with the petition U/s 12 of the D.V. Act, appellant/wife also filed an application U/s 23 of D.V. Act seeking interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month on the same ground taken by her in the main petition.
3. During trial, Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.11.2023, dismissed the application U/s 23 D.V. Act, which order has been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal. The appeal has been filed well within its limitation period.
4. Appellant/wife has challenged the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 on the following grounds:-
(a) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appeciate that appellant left the matrimonial house on 09.04.2018 under compelling circumstances in order to save her life and limbs as she was thrashed by the respondent;
(b) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant/wife is entitled for claim of monetary relief as she was subjected to acts of domestic violence in the matrimonial house;Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:54:25 +0530 CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 3 of 22
(c) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent has not filed any cogent proof against the appellant to show that she is leading an adulterous life;
(d) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant left the matrimonial house owing to acts of domestic violence and not due to any adulterous relations and no evidence whatsoever regarding her alleged aldulterous relationship has surfaced on record;
(e) that the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Habeas Corpus petition has wrongly been appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court holding that appellant left the company of the respondent of her own, however, it was due to her sufferings of domestic violence which compelled her to leave the matrimonial house;
(f) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant has no source of income whereas respondent/husband is a Govt. Employee having salary of around Rs. 70,000/- PM;
Appellant has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, thereby allowing her interim application U/s 23 of D.V. Act.
5. On the other hand, respondent/husband has contested the appeal by filing written submission as per which the factum of marriage and birth of two children has been admitted. It is stated that appellant/wife has done Nursery Teachers CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 4 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:54:32 +0530 Training in 2008 and a course of Beauty Culture in 2004. It is stated that she is a well educated lady to maintain herself. Respondent is bearing all the expenses of the children including education and family expenses. All the allegations of dowry demand, domestic violence are false. It is counter alleged that appellant used to raise quarrels and disturbed the family peace. Respondent has limited income as he is working as SI (Steno) in ITBP whereas appellant has lavish and luxurious demands, which he is unable to meet. Appellant never cared for the children. Appellant admitted that she is in love affair with someone and respondent saw adulturous whatsapp messages of the appellant. On 18.07.2018, first motion of mutual divorce was allowed between the parties by the Family Court, however, appellant did not come forward for the second motion. Respondent is spending his earnings for education of children, loan liabilities and care of his parents. Appellant has filed complaint U/s 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, a petition under Guardians and Wards Act claiming custody of children in addition to present petition under D.V. Act. Respondent on the other hand has filed a contested Divorce petition. Parties have been living separately from many years. Appellant is living with someone in adultery and has betrayed the children. Respondent is paying Rs. 2000/- to appelalnt on every month third Saturday for her visiting. Appellant has left the matrimonial house with her boy friend CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 5 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:54:38 +0530 Pawan of her own. Appellant has stated before the Hon'ble High Court that she don't need anything from the respondent including visitation rights. It is stated that appellant is well qualified and is capable of earning. It is stated that the impugned order is a good order having no infirmity. It is prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record.
7. Ld. cousnel for the the appellant has argued on the lines of the grounds taken by her in the appeal. It is argued that no proof of alleged adulturous relationship of appellant has been filed by the respondent. It is argued that appellant has no source of income and she is at the verge of starvation. It is argued that respondent is working as Sub-Inspector in ITBP and is earning Rs. 70,000/- per month and is capable enough to maintain the appellant but has deliberately neglected and ignored her. It is prayed that the appeal shall be allowed.
8. Per contra, respondent/husband has averred that he never committed domestic violence upon respondent and due to the temperamental differences of opinion, disputes arose and respondent left her matrimonial home out of her free will. It is argued that appellant is in adulturous relationship with one Pawan and has stated before the Hon'ble High Court that she CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 6 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:54:46 +0530 left the matrimonial house out of her own free will and she does not desire anything from her husband. It is stated that the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court speaks loud against the appellant. It is prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Vide impugned order dated 28.11.2023, Ld Trial Court dismissed the the application U/s 23 D.V. Act for interim relief, with the following observations:-
It is the case of complainant that she was subjected to cruelty rights from the inception of marriage. However, it is the case of respondent that complainant was leading an adulterous life and she left her matrimonial home out of her free will in order to live with her paramour. The fact of complainant leaving her matrimonial home out of her free will was duly recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after interacting with the complainant in the order dated 04.05.2018. It is also recorded in the said order that complainant had stated that she did not desire anything from her husband. Considering those submissions made by complainant before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the averments made by respondent appear to be of substance and cannot be overlooked at this stage. Rather, these admissions make out a prima facie case in favour of respondent. Also, the sequence of chain of event as alleged by respondent i.e. complainant leaving her matrimonial home, respondent filing a writ of habeas-corpus, complainant admitting leaving matrimonial home out of her free will before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, parties entering into settlement and filing divorce by way of mutual consent, complainant later on resiling from her position and filing DV Complaint, also support the version of respondent.
Therefore, considering the time-line of events and CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 7 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:54:52 +0530 allegations and counter allegations, the court is of the view that complainant has not been able to show a prima - facie case in her favour. Therefore, I am not inclined to pass any interim order qua monetary relief at this stage. Complainant is at liberty to prove her case regarding purported acts of domestic violence to which she was subjected by respondent during the trial.
Consequently, the present application under Section 23 PWDV Act is dismissed. Nothing content herein shall tantamount to an expression on merits of the case. Application stands disposed off."
10. In order to be entitled to claim relief against any person arrayed as respondent, it is essential for the aggrieved person to show that she shared a domestic relationship with the said respondent.
11. The term domestic relationship has been defined in section 2 (f) which reads as under:
"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;
12.The term respondent has been defined in section(q) which reads as under:
"respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act;
CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 8 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:55:04 +0530
13. The factum of marriage of the parties or the legitimacy of the children born from the wedlock is not in dispute. Respondent/husband has not denied that the appellant stayed with him after marriage till the year 2018 and thereafter she did not reside with him under the same roof. Admittedly, the children of the parties were born to the appellant while they were in domestic relationship. Appellant/wife is legally wedded spouse of the appellant/husband who have lived together for a substantial period of time and the domestic relationship between the parties stands established.
14. Now, reverting to the issue whether respondent has been responsible of committing domestic violence upon the complainant. At this stage, it is apposite to take note of relevant sections in the D.V.Act. The term "Domestic Violence" is defined in Section 3 of the said Act and relevant portion of the said definition reads thus :
"3. Definition of domestic violence - For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 9 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:55:10 +0530 property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause
(a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person."
15.The DV Act came to be enacted essentially to grant statutory protection to victims of violence in the domestic sector who had no proprietary rights so that the civil law protection could not be availed by them. However, what is important is that the women claiming right under PWDV Act must be subjected to domestic violence and only then can she file and claim various reliefs given to her under the Act. The commission of act of domestic violence by the respondent as against the applicant is the condition necessary for filing of any application under PWDV Act.
16. At the outset, I may observe that factum of marriage has not been disputed by respondent. The appellant alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence by respondent. However, same has been denied by respondent. It is a settled law that serious disputed questions of fact (requiring evidence) cannot be gone into at the time of deciding an application for grant of interim maintenance and as the same can only be decided during course of trial after parties lead their respective evidence.
CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 10 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:55:16 +0530
17.The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has rejected the claim for interim maintenance for the reason that the application does not prima facie make out a case of domestic violence, complainant left her matrimonial home out of her free will, she stated before Hon'ble High Court that she does desire anything from her husband, she entered into a settlement and filed divorce by mutual consent but later resile and that the allegations and counter allegations will have to be tested on the touchstone of evidence. It is settled that domestic violence is sine qua non for filing of application under the D V Act. The application is still be to be adjudicated on the touchstone of evidence and at this stage the pleadings will have to be looked into to ascertain whether any prima facie case of domestic violence is made out. In the application filed by the applicant under section 12 of the DV Act, the applicant has narrated the acts of domestic violence inflicted upon her by the respondent and his family members and specific allegation has been made that respondent/husband used to beat the complainant beside the verbal and emotional abuse, would prima facie satisfy the definition of domestic violence under section 3 of the D.V. Act.
18. The Legislature has given an expansive definition to "domestic violence" and perusal of section 3 of the DV Act would indicate that domestic violence not only includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse but CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 11 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:55:22 +0530 also includes economic abuse. Reading the averments in the application under section 12 of the DV Act in light of the expansive definition of domestic violence under section 3 of the DV Act, in my view, the application could not be stated to not make out a case of domestic violence. At the stage of considering the application under section 23 of the DV Act, the only consideration is whether a prima facie case of domestic violence has been made out. The application for interim relief could not be rejected for the reason that the allegations and counter allegations have to be tested on the touchstone of evidence. That is required to be done in every case and interim relief cannot be rejected on the said ground. Even if the Trial Court was of the view that the allegations required evidence to be led, it should have considered that clear case of economic abuse has been made out as admittedly no provision for her maintenance was made by respondent. The trial Court has failed to take into consideration the allegations made by the wife and has wrongly held that the application does not make out a case of domestic violence. Since, the appellant/wife has made allegations of she being subjected to domestic violence by appellant, a prima facie case for domestic violence is made out in the instant case. Therefore, the observation of Ld Trial Court on this count cannot be sustained.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:55:28 +0530 CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 12 of 22
19. It is also pertinent to note that there are allegations by respondent of adulterous relationship with another person for whom she left her matrimonial home. It is therefore prima facie evident that there are averments as regards the aspersions cast on the character of the applicant.
20. In the instant case, respondent has though leveled the allegations of adultary against the appellant with one Pawan, however, has failed to produce any corroborative prima-
facie proof in that regard at this stage, which makes the allegation bald. Respondent has stressed upon the contents of the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court emphasizing that she left the matrimonial house out of her own free will and that she does not desire anything from her husband. It may be mentioned that the appellant has selectively focused on the words that appellant left her matrimonial house out of her own free will. However, in fact her entire statement in this regard is "Hemlata has given her statement to the SHO, PS Saket, wherein she has stated that she left her matrimonial hosue out of her own free will on account of matrimonial dispute between the couple". This signifies that the defined reason for her leaving the matrimonial house is dispute between the couple. Furthermore, as regards, the statement that she does not desire anything from her husband. It may be mentioned that the said statement was given before the SHO, PS Saket and CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 13 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:55:37 +0530 not before the Hon'ble High Court that too in 2018, whereas the instant D.V. Act case was filed 2019. The possiblity that she was in need of maintenance in 2019 but not in 2018, cannot be ruled out, as the same is the subsequent development. Even otherwise, the statement given by the appellant before the SHO in 2018, does not debare or disentitle her for her valuable right to claim maintenance in 2019. The series of admitted events that appellant filed CAW complaint, D.V. Act petition, petition under Guardians and Wards Act and 125 Cr.P.C. petition reveals that there was sufficient cause of action for her which compelled her to approach the Court of law to seek justice. It is not the claim of the respondent/husband that appellant is into employment/business and is earning to maintain herself. Merely, holding certificate of Nursery Teacher Training or done Beauty parlour course does not infer that appellant actually earninng and is maintaining herself. It is also not the claim of the respondent/husband that the appellant/wife has been working in the past or has been earning ever since her marriage with him till her separation. On the otherhand, respondent/husband has admitted that he is working as Sub- Inspector (Steno) in ITBP. Hence, the entitlement of the appellant/wife to claim maintenance from the respondent/husband cannot be negated on be basis of the plea taken by the respondent/husband.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:55:45 +0530 CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 14 of 22
21. Ld. Trial Court has erred in appreciating that the order of the Hon'ble High Court finds mention that appellant/wife has stated that she has left the matrimonial house, though out of her free will, however, on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, which is evident from the number of cases filed by her after the date of said statement. Ld. Trial Court has further failed to appreciate that the appellant is not working or earning and that her entitlement qua claim of maintenance from the respondent/husband does not stand debarred in any manner. The allegation and counter allegations between the parties are subject matter of trial and the same can be proved or disproved once the evidence of the parties is led. It is an admitted position that appellant does not have any independent source of income. The children are in the custody of the respondent/husband and he is maintaining them.
22. I may mention here that while fixing an interim maintenance, court has to take a prima facie view of the matter and need not to critically examine the respective claims of the parties regarding their respective incomes and assets because for deciding the same, the evidence would be required. But, at the same time, an aggrieved person cannot be rendered to lead a life of a destitute till completion of trial.
It is also pertinent to note here that as per the dictionary meaning of the word 'maintenance', it includes all such CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 15 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:55:52 +0530 means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort, suitable and becoming to his situation of life. It is said to include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper recreation, vacation, traveling expenses or other proper cognate purposes. For computing the maintenance, the following tests have been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 7, wherein it has been observed that:-
"No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such that she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate."
23.Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9503/2018, dated 04.11.2020 has held as under :
"Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance (i) The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The factors which would CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 16 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:56:01 +0530 weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non working wife."
In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain, this Court held that :- the financial position of the parents of the applicant "wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated andcould support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. (ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 17 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:56:07 +0530 disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort"
24. Further, the Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v Smt. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007) DLT 16, laid down the following factors to be considered for determining 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 ina similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non applicant's liabilities, if any.
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/ 24 of the Act.
25. Respective income affidavits of both the parties are already on record, as per which income of husband as salary of Sub- Inspector from ITBP is Rs. 55,536/- and his monthly CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 18 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:56:13 +0530 expenditure is shown as Rs. 1,00,482/-. It is difficult to comprehend as to how a person earning Rs. 55,000/- per month has been managing monthly expenditure of around Rs. 1 lakh per month. It may be mentioned that the income affidavit filed by the respondent/husband is of February, 2022, after which he must have received 4 increments on his salary and his net salary must not be less than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as on date. Though, in the income affidavit given by him in February 2022, respondent/husband has claimed his net salary to be Rs. 55,536/-, however, corresponding entry in his bank statement shows credit of salary of Rs. 59,588/- in February 2022, which is self contradictory to his own version. Even contrary to the same, his salary slip for November 2021 shows that his Gross Salary is Rs. 97,612 and his net salary is Rs. 61,812/-. A person drawing salary of Rs. 61,812/- in Novmeber 2021 must be drawing net salary of around Rs. 1 lakh as on date. Apparantly it appears that respondent/husband has attempted to conceal his true income from the Court in order to avoid maintenance to his legally wedded wife.
26. On the other hand, as per the income affidavit of appellant/wife, she is living on rent and is having monthly expenses of Rs. 10,000/- per month. She is unemployed and has no income. She has been living separately since 09.04.2018. The two children born from the wedlock are in CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 19 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:56:22 +0530 the possession of the respondent/husband.
27. In view thereof, the monthly income of appellant can be assessed @ Rs. 61,812/- (Net salary of respondent). On the other hand, the income of respondent is nil as per her income.
28. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra, 110,(2004) DLT 546 has observed as follows :-
"In other words the court must first arrive at the net disposable income of the Husband or the dominant earning spouse. If the other spouse is also working these earnings must be kept in mind. This would constitute the Family Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed amongst the members of the family. The apportionment of the cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of the family members, which is exactly what happens when the spouses are one homogeneous unit. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned counsel for the Respondent had fervently contended that normally 1/5th of the disposable income is allowed to the Wife. She has not shown any authority or precedent for this proposition and the only source or foundation for it may be traceable to Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. This archaic statute mercifully does not apply to the parties before the Court, and is a vestige of a bygone era where the wife/woman was considered inferior to the husband as somewhat akin to his chattels. The law has advanced appreciably, and for the better. In the face of Legislatures reluctant to bring about any change over fifty years ago the Courts held that the deserted wife was entitled to an equal division of matrimonial assets. I would be extremely loath to restrict maintenance to 1/5th of the Husband's income where this would be insufficient for the Wife to live in a manner commensurative with her Husband's status or similar to the lifestyle enjoyed by her before the marital severance. In my CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 20 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:56:29 +0530 view, a satisfactory approach would be to divide the Family Resource Cake in two portions to the Husband since he has to incur extra expenses in the course of making his earning, and one share each to other members."
29. Therefore, the principles of apportionment is to be applied to the family resource cake i.e. income of appellant @ Rs. 61,812/-per month which he is deriving as salary. Accordingly, said income is to be divided into six equal portions of which two portions have to be retained by appellant whereas one portion is to be retained by mother of the appellant, two portions, each to minor children and one portion to appellant/wife. Based thereon, the appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance.
30. With these observations, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2023 is set aside. Respondent/husband is directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the appellant/wife from the date of filing of the said application i.e. 09.07.2019. Arrears be cleared within 6 months from the date of this order.
31. TCR be sent back to Ld Trial Court along with copy of this judgment.
32. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 21 of 22 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.14 16:56:36 +0530
33. The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.14 16:56:45 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) on 14th Day of August 2025 ASJ-05(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 22 signed pages) CA/358/2023 HEMLATA Vs. SATYENDRA Page no. 22 of 22