Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 41, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Permanent Residence At vs Himmat Singh on 29 July, 2020

        IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
         DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI

   Criminal Appeal No. 87/2020

    Priyanka Singh
    W/o Himmat Singh
    R/o 5, Ground Floor
    Aurobindo Marg
    New Delhi­110016.

    Permanent Residence at:
    B­22, 4th floor, Vasant Marg
    Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­110057.                            ..... Appellant

                                           Versus
1. Himmat Singh
   S/o Late Deshbir Singh
   R/o B­22, 4th floor, Vasant Marg
   Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­110057.

2. Manju Deshbir Singh
   W/o Late Deshbir Singh
   B­22, 4th floor, Vasant Marg                      (Discharged vide order
   Vasant Vihar, New Delhi­110057.                   dated 12.09.2019)
                                                            .....Respondents

                  Date of filing                : 06.07.2020
                  Date of arguments             : 25.07.2020
                  Date of judgment              : 29.07.2020


Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020                                        Page No. 1 of 50
Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
 JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 vide which the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate while disposing off the application u/S 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005("PWDV Act" in short) declined the maintenance for the daughters born out of the wedlock between the parties on the ground that they are major and have not been impleaded as parties in the present petition. Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate also declined the interim maintenance on the ground that the complainant did not file any document to show that the respondent no.1/husband is earning anything. Ld.Trial Court also declined to pass any direction to the respondent no.1/ husband to renew the lease deed or to pay the rent to the complainant/wife. Ld.Trial Court taking into account the financial status of both the parties and the income affidavits filed by them interalia held that the complainant/wife is capable enough to maintain herself and therefore, she is not entitled to any monetary interim maintenance at this stage.

2. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has challenged the impugned order predominantly on the ground that the Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 2 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate despite having found a prima facie case that there was infliction of violence and the complainant/appellant is entitled to claim maintenance, rejected the interim maintenance to the appellant and her daughters on mere conjectures and surmises. It has been submitted that the impugned order suffers from abject non application of mind and ignored the systematic/ calculative manner in which the appellant and her daughters were evicted from the shared household and have been deprived of the maintenance.

3. Briefly stated, the appellant/complainant filed a Criminal Complaint No.6424/19 u/S 12 PWDV Act against the husband Sh.Himmat Singh, respondent no.1 and mother in law Ms. Manju Deshbir Singh, respondent no.2. It has been submitted that the appellant was married to respondent no.1 and out of the wedlock two daughters were born. After marriage, the parties moved in the house of respondent no.1 i.e. B­4/54, 4th Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The complainant alleged that since marriage, the respondent no.1/ husband insisted that the complainant and their daughters lead a frugal life style, while he would enjoy a lavish life style. The complainant alleged that after having done a course in Make Up from London, she got an opportunity to work with Ms. Konkana Sen Sharma in movies. But Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 3 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

the respondent no.1/ husband and his family forced her to stop working after maligning her. The complainant alleged that since 2006, she has been financially abused and was purposely deprived of the family pool of finances. The complainant stated that in 2006, she also got an opportunity in CNN­IBN channel, which helped her in undertaking her personal expenses. The complainant in her complaint narrated various instances indicating towards the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, the details of which are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. The complainant also stated that the respondent no.1/husband and his family had also been falsely charging her with baseless allegations of infidelity. It was stated that on certain occasions the respondent no.1/husband also physically abused the appellant. Subsequently, the parties moved to a rented apartment in Hauz Khas. It was alleged that the respondent no.1/ husband refused to pay for any other expenses except for the monthly rent of the house and appellant alone shouldered the entire home expenses and for this, she had to borrow money from her parents. The complainant alleged that the respondent no.1/ husband pressed her to ask money from her parents for international vacations as well as for the payment of the rent, whereas the family owned property was sold by the family of the respondent no.1/husband Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 4 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

for around Rs.22.5/­crore and this money was invested by the respondent no.1/husband in joint name with his brother to further his agenda of enjoying family resources to the exclusion of complainant and her daughters. The complainant alleged that though the respondent no.1/ husband had large sum of money, but he avoided to fulfill his responsibilities towards the appellant and his two daughters. The respondent no.1/husband did not contribute in any manner to the household and day­to­day expenses of the appellant and their daughters, however, continued to have a lavish life style for himself. The complainant alleged that in the year 2015, the family moved to the top floor of the Vasant Vihar house in a porta cabin whereas respondent no.1 had been given the second floor of Vasant Vihar house. The complainant alleged that the respondent no.1/husband had entered into an extra marital affair and in order to have complete freedom moved to his brothers floor in the shared household. The complainant alleged that the respondent no.1/husband was also not keen to meet the educational expenses of the daughters. The complainant in order to resolve the matrimonial disputes approached the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Center, but there also she was threatened by the respondent no.1/husband to settle the matter on his terms. The complainant Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 5 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

stated that the respondent no.1/husband abdicated all his financial responsibilities towards the complainant and their daughters since April 2019. The complainant stated that after the elder daughter left in October 2018 for further studies, the complainant was forced to shift from the shared household to an apartment in Aurobindo Marg for which a lease deed was entered into between the landlord and respondent no.1/husband for the period of two years w.e.f. 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2020 The complainant alleged that though they were forced to live in a rented apartment, but the respondent no.1/husband continued to live in a four bedroom apartment in Vasant Vihar. The respondent no.1/husband refused to work on the ground that he is too over qualified to get a job. Subsequently, the respondent no.1/husband in order to harass the complainant stopped paying water and electricity charges and after the expiry of lock­in period in December 2019, the respondent no.1/husband unilaterally terminated the lease. The respondent no.1/husband also refused to give any money for the education of the younger daughter. The complainant alleged that she had suffered emotionally and physically and prayed for orders under the various provisions of PWDV Act and prayed for compensation, monetary relief etc. orders. An application u/S 23 PWDV Act was also moved for grant of ad­interim ex­parte stay.

Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 6 of 50

Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

4. The respondent no.1/husband filed a detailed reply to the complaint and stated that the complainant had moved a false and frivolous complaint and has approached the court with unclean hands and has caused gross abuse of the process of law. The respondent no.1/husband stated that B­22, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi belongs to his mother and he had been going through financial crises after the family business collapsed in 2011 and therefore, the respondent no.1/husband has no income. The respondent no.1/husband stated that after marriage in the year 1998, they lived at B­4/54, Top Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi till 2010, thereafter they shifted to K­68 Hauz Khas Enclave and lived there till 2014. In the year 2014, the parties shifted to K­90, Hauz Enclave. However, by this time the financial resources of the respondent no.1 totally depleted and he had no means to pay the rent. The respondent no.1 stated that since beginning the complainant did not like the respondent no.1 being close to his family. The complainant was fond of luxurious life style and was earning handsomely, but completely refrained from providing in the family pool of resources even in the event of dire need. The respondent no.1 stated that he was taking care of the entire household expenses. The respondent no.1 stated that after his father detected with cancer, the fortunes started turning Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 7 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

into bad and the family business went into huge losses. The respondent no.1 stated that though the family was in financial crunch, the complainant chose to leave the job in 2014 for her comfort over the need of the house. The respondent no.1 stated that in view of the financial crises, they were permitted by his mother to shift to porta cabin temporarily till their financial position becomes stable. The respondent no.1 stated that though his mother had been providing all financial assistance but the complainant continued to inflict mental and physical torture upon the respondent no.1 and his family. The respondent no.1 stated that he stays in D­8/7, Vasant Vihar, the rent of which is being borne by his brother. The respondent no.1 stated that complainant is well qualified to earn handsomely. It was also stated that the complainant is also assisting her father in their business. The respondent no.1 also stated that there are number of legal cases pending against him on account of financial crises. The respondent no.1 further stated that in view of his financial position he had agreed to pay the first and third year foreign education of his elder daughter, but given his financial situation he was unsure and had advised his daughter to get higher education in India in Ashoka University. The respondent no.1 stated that till 2019, a sum of Rs.41,40,000/­ were paid by Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 8 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

respondent no.1's family for the educational expenses of the elder daughter. In addition, the expenses for younger daughter and house expenses are also being borne by mother of respondent no.1 which from July 2019 to December 2019 amounted to Rs.9,60,000/­. The respondent no.1 alleged that rather he and his family had been subject to severe mental, emotional and financial abuse. The respondent no.1 denied all the allegations made in the complaint. In his detailed reply, the respondent no.1 also made several allegations against the appellant indicating her indifferent attitude and bad temper. The respondent no.1 also denied of living a lavish life style and owning luxurious cars. The ownership of immoveable properties were also denied.

5. Ld.Trial Court after considering the records and hearing the submissions of the parties, passed the impugned order whereby the interim maintenance to the appellant and her daughters were declined and only a partial relief was granted restraining the respondent no.1/husband from alienating, selling, transferring, mortgaging or creating third party interest etc. in his undivided share in property in Revla Khanpur Village, Near Pushpanjali Farm Delhi. The appellant aggrieved of this, filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order predominantly on the grounds that the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate has declined the Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 9 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

interim maintenance to the appellant and her daughters on grounds which are contrary to law and facts. The appellant has based her case upon the fact that the respondent no.1/husband is leading a luxurious life and is having huge rental income from the property, which is a joint family household property besides the income from mutual funds and other resources. The appellant has submitted that the respondent no.1/husband is member of many elite clubs, has expensive cars and enjoys international vacations. The plea of the appellant is that the respondent no.2 who is the mother in law of appellant and mother of respondent no.1/husband, in fact runs the entire household and she out of the rental income meets the expenses of her children using the joint family income from the business which is run for the benefit of the entire family.

6. I have heard Sh. Trideep Pais and Ms. Sanya, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ld.Counsel for the respondent and perused the record carefully.

7. The case of the appellant is that the respondent no.1/husband in collusion with his mother and other members of his family have ousted the appellant and her daughters in a systematic and calculative manner by inflicting economic, Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 10 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

emotional and physical abuses. The appellant has submitted that though the respondent no.1/husband has pleaded that their joint family business collapsed in 2011 but thereafter, the respondent no.1/husband along with appellant and children shifted to accommodation, which had more rental as compared to earlier accommodation and also admitted in an e­mail dated 05.05.2014 that respondent no.1/husband is contributing Rs.3,33,150/­pm towards the household expenses and rent. It has been submitted that the bank account of the respondent no.1/husband reveals huge receipts from multiple sources of income and investments. The appellant submitted that after May 2016, the respondent no.1/husband abdicated his financial commitment and started transferring only a sum of Rs.85,000/­ from his account to the joint account of the appellant for household and children expenses in addition to other educational expenses. Since Rs.85,000/­ were grossly insufficient to meet the expenses and maintain the lifestyle that the appellant and her daughters were accustomed to, the appellant initiated pre litigation mediation in May 2018 with the intention to amicable settle the issue. However, the respondent no.1/husband got annoyed with this and he devised a strategy to evict the appellant and her daughters out of the shared household and stopped paying any expenses/maintenance. The respondent Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 11 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

no.1/husband forced the appellant and her daughters to vacate the porta cabin in shared household at Vasant Vihar and thereafter, they shifted to a rented accommodation. The two years lease deed was executed by the respondent no.1/husband with the home owner of the said rented accommodation with a lock­in period of one year. The appellant submitted that against the assurances given by the respondents, the appellant and her daughters were not allowed to shift to the shared household and rather the portion was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.1,20,000/­pm. The respondent no.1/husband also stopped transferring a sum of Rs.85,000/­ wef April 2019. In December 2019, respondent no.1/husband after expiry of the lock­in period unilaterally terminated the lease and conveyed to landlord that he would no longer pay the rent and refused to continue with the lease. The appellant submitted that she has been allowed to reside in the rented accommodation only till 30.07.2020 and thereafter, she and her daughters will have no place. In regard to the educational expenses of elder daughter Carizma Singh, the appellant submitted that after initial hesitation, respondent no.1/husband had undertaken to pay for the elder daughters education course for three years in Durham University, U.K and even went to drop to her college. The appellant invited the attention of the court towards the Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 12 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

undertaking executed by respondent no.1/husband stating therein that he is Managing Director of Hairg India Pvt. Ltd. and having annual income of Rs.24,00,000/­per annum. The respondent no.1/husband also stated in the said undertaking that he has sufficient finances and can sponsor his elder daughters educational expenses. This undertaking was filed by the respondent no.1/husband before the U.K.High Commission alongwith the visa papers. The respondent no.1/husband has also filed an affidavit before the Student Section, British High Commission dated 06.08.2018 wherein he stated that :

"I am employed in business/service and in addition to the income received from here, I receive rental income as well as interest on my mutual fund investments. The total of all these amount to approximately Rs.24,00,000/­per annum. As most of these investments are non taxable, they are not reflected in my ITR. Moreover I hold investments to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/­ in immovable/moveable assets. I have gone through all the details & I am fully convinced about this suitability for my daughter. I am also in position to bear her educational expenses till the time she wishes too pursue higher education in UK."

8. Sh.Trideep Pais, Ld.Counsel for the appellant also Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 13 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

invited the attention of the court towards the bank statement of respondent no.1 of account no.5541929225 maintained at Citibank, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar to show that the educational expenses were made by the respondent no.1 father himself. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the elder daughter has to start her second year at Durham University commencing in September, 2020 and start visa process in July, 2020. However, the respondent no.1/husband turned totally irresponsible and contrary to his undertaking has refused to fund the academic expenses of his elder daughter. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that courts are bound to grant maintenance to the wife to enable her to live in a reasonable comfort considering her status, which she used to while living with her husband. Ld.Counsel for the appellant has time and again emphasised upon the fact that the respondent no.1/husband, his mother and his brother have joint income assets and they are always pooling expenses and resources and all resources are made by family assets. Ld.Counsel submits that the respondent no.1 has malafidely and mischievously did not produce the entire documents concerning his financial status and has built up rest of the account and records only to inflict domestic violence, economic abuse upon the appellant and her daughters. Ld.Counsel for the appellant has Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 14 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

further submitted that elder daughter cannot be denied educational expenses by her father merely on the ground that she is a major. In support of his contention, Ld.Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Nagshetty and Ors. Vs Aruna, Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 200070/2015, 200079/2015 and 200062/2016, decided on 12.07.2018. Ld.Counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of the court to the various inflow of income in the account of respondent no.1 from his investments between the period 2012 to 2018. The receipts have been shown in detail from page no.43 to 45 of the appeal. The attention of the court has also been drawn to an e­mail of mother of respondent no.1 to the appellant and respondent no.1 dated 01.04.2019 whereby the entire expenses of the household of the appellant and respondent no.1 including the educational expenses of the children were taken care of by the mother of respondent no.1/husband. Further, the attention is drawn to another e­mail dated 28.11.2018 of mother of respondent no.1 to the appellant. Ld.Counsel for the appellant pointed out that respondent in his written statement in para 43 and 60 admitted that the porta cabin which was got vacated from the appellant was let out @ Rs.1,20,000/­pm. The attention of the court has also been invited to the email dated 10.05.2018 of mother of respondent no.1/husband to the appellant Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 15 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

and respondent no.1 showing that one rent is dedicated for taking care of the appellants children school fee, tuition fee, staff salary and other household expenses. Ld.Counsel submits that this e mail makes it clear that infact the entire expenses used to come out of a common kitty and the finances were controlled exclusively by the mother of respondent no.1/husband. Ld.Counsel invited the attention of the court to the averment made by respondent no.1 in para 51 of his written statement, wherein he admitted to fund the foreign education of elder daughter. Ld.Counsel has also invited the attention of the court to the certificate of the Citibank dated 13.08.2018 wherein it was certified that respondent no.1 holds an account no.5541929225 and as on 20.07.2018 and it has a balance of Rs.36,85,148.46/­. In support of his contention, Ld.Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in case titled as :

(1) Eveneet Singh and Ors. Vs Prashant Chaudhri and Ors., 177(2011) DLT 124;
(2) Neelam Malhotra Vs Rajinder Malhotra and Ors., AIR 1994 Delhi 234;
(3) Navneet Arora Vs Surender Kaur,2015 III AD(Delhi) 337;
(4) Bharat Hegde Vs Saroj Hegde, AIR 2007 Delhi 197;
Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 16 of 50
Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
(5) Smt.Preeti Satija Vs Smt.Raj Kumari and Anr.,2014 III AD(Delhi) 329;
(6) Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar, Crl.Rev.P.659/2017 & Crl. M.A.14463/2017 decided on 09.08.2019 and (7) Anupam Gupta Vs Sumeet Gupta, CM(M) 1718/2004, decided on 30.05.2011 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

9. Sh.Prabjit Jauhar,Ld.Counsel for the respondent controverted all the submissions made by the appellant and stated that Ms.Manju Deshbir Singh, mother of respondent no.1/husband is the sole owner of property no.D­22, Vasant Vihar , New Delhi and the rental income of the same is the sole and exclusive income of Ms.Manju Deshbir Singh. It has further been submitted that the complaint under PWDV Act was filed against Ms.Manju Deshbir Singh, but she was deleted from the array of parties on 12.09.2019 by Ld.Trial Court and this has never been challenged by the appellant and has thus attained finality. Ld.Counsel submits that the appellant herself has admitted in her petition that the mother of respondent no.1 had been paying the rent and respondent no.1/husband did not have funds and she had to pay for the expenses of the children out of her salary.Ld.Counsel Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 17 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

submits that the rent of Aurobindo Marg property, where the appellant is presently staying is being paid by mother in law and brother in law. Ld.Counsel submits that the appellant has done a course with renowned make up artist Jemma Kidd in London, which too was funded by the mother of respondent no.1 and she had worked for the celebrity Konkona Sharma and also started working for CNN IBN in 2006. Ld.Counsel submits that appellant has admitted rental income of Rs.55,000/­ and she also works as Manager at her father's resort at Peepal Kothi. Ld.Counsel submits that earlier the rent and other expenses were being paid by the mother of respondent no.1 out of her own free will but on account of the conduct of the appellant, she has stopped paying the same and in any law, mother in law cannot be directed or forced to pay the rent or the educational expenses. Ld.Counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1/husband cannot be directed to pay the educational expenses of elder daughter in view of the fact that she is major as per Section 2(b) PWDV Act. In support of his contention, Ld.Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment in cases titled as :

(1) Rajendra D.Seth Vs Rekha Jha alias Rekha R.Seth, 2014 SCC Online Bom 474 (2) Antonio De Matos Sequeria Almeida Vs Felicidade Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 18 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
                   Wilma Almeida & Anr., 2018 SCC Online Bom 1123
(3)               Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel and Ors. Vs Vatslaben
                  Ashokbhai Patel, (2008) 4 SCC 649
(4)               S.R.Batra and Anr. Vs Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC
169
(5)               K.N. vs R.G., 2019 SCC Online Del 7704
(6)               Rupali Gupta Vs Rajat Gupta, 2016 SCC Online Del
                  5009
(7)               Amit Khanna Vs Priyanka Khanna & Ors., 2010 SCC
                  Online Del 2979
(8)               Nikita Gupta Vs Alok Gupta and Ors., CS(OS)
                  No.553/2016 and CC No.19/2017 decided on
                  21.05.2019.
10. The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In every society, the phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Even the victims of domestic violence do not come forward to report the matter to the authorities. Though, there were penal provisions Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 19 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

for punishing the perpetrators of cruelty on women, but it was thought that there was a need to legislate an effective law to redress the grievances of the victims of domestic violence. The Domestic Violence has been defined in Section 3 of the Act. In the present context, it is necessary to look at the definition of "economic abuse" which is defined in Section 3 (d)(iv) of the Act, which reads as under :

"economic abuse" includes ­
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 20 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.

Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration."

11. It is also advantageous to refer to the definition of child. Section 2(b) of the Act defines that in this Act unless the context otherwise requires (emphasis supplied), "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child". Thus, the definition of the child restrict the age of a person to be below the age of eighteen years, unless the context otherwise requires.

12. Perusal of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would reveal that legislation in its wisdom had provided a complete mechanism for the passing orders relating to protection, residence and monetary reliefs. The court has also been conferred powers to pass a direction for granting temporary custody of the child or children to the aggrieved person Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 21 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

or the person making an application on her behalf. Section 22 of the Act also provides that in addition to other reliefs, the Magistrate may also pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages or both to the aggrieved person for domestic violence inflicted upon her. Section 23 of the Act empowers the court to pass an interim order. Thus, the legislation in its wisdom has devised a complete mechanism for the redressal of the grievances of the victims of domestic violence. The PWDV Act is a socio welfare legislation and is required to be interpreted in a manner which fulfills the intention of the legislation. The scheme of the Act indicates that the legislation has endeavour to make single window legislation for redressal of all the grievances.

13. Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order prima facie took a view that there was infliction of violence and therefore, the complainant is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent no.1.

14. The Ld. Trial Court has declined to pass any order for the children borne out of the wedlock between the the complainant / appellant and the respondent/husband on the ground that daughters are majors and they have not been Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 22 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

impleaded as petitioner / aggrieved in the present petition.

15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued vehemently that the court have to interpret the provisions of this Act in a liberal manner and should take an expansionist view in order to meet the objective of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Nagshetty and Ors. Vs. Aruna MANU/KA/3100/ 2018. In this case also the children born out of the wedlock were major and were pursuing higher education. In the domestic violence petition instituted by the wife, the Ld. Trial Court awarded compensation to the major daughters and to the son till they get married. The appellant / husband challenged this order on the ground that he is not liable to maintain the major daughters and they were also not party to the petition. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka stated through Justice K.S. Mudagal that :

"16. Thus, it is clear that the compensation awarded should be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

17. Further reading of Section 20(1)(d) of the D.V. Act makes it clear that the monetary relief includes the maintenance for the aggrieved persons as well as her children in addition to an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force also.

18. It is no doubt true that in Section 2(b) of D.V. Act, the Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 23 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

child is defined as "child means any person below the age of eighteen years". But, Section 20(1)(d) of D.V. Act imposes responsibility of paying maintenance to the children also which is payable in accordance with Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force.

19. As already pointed out, the parties are governed by Hindu law. Therefore, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance law also applies to them. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 fastens the liability on the parents to maintain his or her unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.

20. Section 3(b) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act states that maintenance includes in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of and incident to her marriage. Therefore, Section 20(1)(d) of D.V. Act read with Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act fastens the legal duty on first respondent to pay maintenance to his daughters till they get married and to pay them reasonable marriage expenses befitting his status.

21. In similar circumstances, the Kerala High Court in Ambika v. K. Aravindakshan ­ Mat. Appeal No. 1234/2015 dated 19.12.2017, held that even under the D.V. Act, the father is liable to pay the marriage expenses of the unmarried daughter and maintenance to them. Therefore, there is no merit Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 24 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

in the contention that respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay maintenance to the major daughters and the marriage expenses."

16. Ld. Counsel submitted that the maintenance awarded should be adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the Hon'ble court should take a view which goes in accordance of the spirit of the law and therefore, the same proposition as taken in Nagshetty case (Supra) should be followed by this court also.

18. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that this court is bound by the provisions of law and since Section 2(b) of the Act specifically provides that "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years and therefore, this definition being read with Section 20, the maintenance cannot be awarded to the elder daughter.

19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Rajendra D. Seth Vs. Rekha Jha 2014 SCC Online Bom 474, in which it was was inter alia held as under :

"Insofar as the children are concerned, both of them have Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 25 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
completed 18 years of age. Section 20 of the Act provides for granting of maintenance to the aggrieved persons and any child of the aggrieved person. As per section 2(b) "Child"

means any person below the age of 18 years. Thus, the applicant cannot become entitled to maintenance, on behalf of her children, who are admittedly above 18 years of age. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that part of the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.1000/­ each to the children of the applicant, is not sustainable and bound to be set aside."

20. Ld. Counsel has further relied upon the case of Antonio De Matos Sequeria Almeida Vs. Felicidade Almeida 2018 SCC Online Bom 1123, wherein the reliance was placed on Rajendra D. Seth (Supra) and it was inter alia held as under :­ "On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the impugned oder which is passed under section 20 of the Act cannot be sustained. Section 20 of the Act provides for a 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. As noticed earlier, a "child" within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act means any person below the age of 18 years. It is apparent from the record that the second respondent has Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 26 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

attained majority and thus cannot be said to be a "child" within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Shri Rajendra D. Seth (supra). In that view of the matter the petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application for interim monetary relief stands dismissed."

21. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also submitted in legal proceedings, there is no case for sympathy and the courts are bound to decide the cases on the basis of the facts on record and the relevant laws. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the case of Vimla Ben Ajit Bhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashok Bhai Patel (2008) 4 SCC 649 wherein it was inter alia held as under :­ "Sympathy or sentiment, as is well known, should not allow the court to have any effect in its decision­making process. Sympathy or sentiment can be invoked only in favour of a person who is entitled thereto. It should never be taken into consideration as a result whereof the other side would suffer civil or evil consequences."

22. Before determining the right of elder daughter Carizma Singh, it is necessary to be reminded that The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a social welfare Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 27 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

legislation enacted for the benefit and amelioration of women. In Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder v. Ayyavoo alias Periana Counder (1982) 1 SCC 159, it was inter alia held that it is a well­ settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions of such enactments, the Court should adopt that construction with advances, fulfills and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one which would defeat the same and render the protection illusory. Thus, the duty of the court is to remove the artifices and make an interpretation which does not restrict the amplitude of protection made available to women under this Act. In any society where women are subjected to violence being in any form i.e. economical, physical or emotional, there can be may forms and manners of such violence. In the cases where the women are economically dependent on their husband, they suffer the violent relationship for fear of dispossession and destitution. The perpetrators of domestic violence can inflict violence by adopting innovative ways and means. Instead of directly causing mental or physical violence upon the subject, the violence or abuse can take the shape of harassment upon the children of such women. Particularly, in the matrimonial relationship where children are with the mother, any harassment caused to the children is directly a cause of harassment for the mother. In the present case, without Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 28 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

going into the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that both the daughters are residing with the mother. The provisions of PWDV Act underscores that the husband is bound to provide his wife and children a roof on their head and capacity to lead their life in the manner and style which they were used to as being led by the husband or by the father. It is also advantageous to refer to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 26.11.2013 in Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma in Crl. Appeal No. 2009/2013 cited in Navneet Arora (Supra) as under :

"Domestic Violence" is undoubtedly a human rights issue, which was not properly taken care of in this country even though the Vienna Accord 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) had acknowledged that domestic violence was undoubtedly a human rights issue. UN Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in its general recommendations had also exhorted the member countries to take steps to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family, a phenomenon widely prevalent in India. Presently, when a woman is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relatives, it is an offence punishable Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. The Civil Law, it was noticed, did not address this phenomenon in its Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 29 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
entirety. Consequently, the Parliament, to provide more effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution Under Articles 14, 15 and 21, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring in the family, enacted the DV Act.
xxx
24. Marriages in India take place either following the personal Law of the Religion to which a party is belonged or following the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Marriage, as per the Common Law, constitutes a contract between a man and a woman, in which the parties undertake to live together and support each other. Marriage, as a concept, is also nationally and internationally recognized. O'Regan, J., in Dawood and Anr. v. Minister of Home Affairs and Ors. 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC) noted as follows:
@@Marriage and the family are social institutions of vital importance. Entering into and sustaining a marriage is a matter of intense private significance to the parties to that marriage for they make a promise to one another to establish and maintain an intimate relationship for the rest of their lives which they acknowledge obliges them to support one another, to live together and to be faithful to one another. Such relationships are of profound significance to the individuals concerned. But such relationships have more than personal significance at least in part because human beings are social Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 30 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
beings whose humanity is expressed through their relationships with others. Entering into marriage therefore is to enter into a relationship that has public significance as well. The institutions of marriage and the family are important social institutions that provide for the security, support and companionship of members of our society and bear an important role in the rearing of children. The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born of the marriage. These legal obligations perform an important social function. This importance is symbolically acknowledged in part by the fact that marriage is celebrated generally in a public ceremony, often before family and close friends...."

[Emphasis Supplied]

23. The case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 was cited with approval in Binita Dass Vs. Uttam Kumar in Crl. Rev. P. No. 659/2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It was inter alia held as under :

"22. The Supreme Court of India in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 31 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. 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 able­bodied. 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 Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 32 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
grounds.
23. The rationale for grant of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. as expounded by the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh (supra) applies on all fours to the grant of maintenance under the DV Act."

24. It is seen that after the marriage, if unfortunately, it runs into trouble, the husband and their family with good financial background start making financial adjustments for the ensuing legal battle. The cases of window dressing of the account and financial resources are also not unknown. In Smt. Preet Satija case (Supra), it was inter alia held as under :

"The facts of this case contain the classic elements of a husband seeking to evade his responsibilities upon marital discord breaking out. He allegedly disappeared and was "disowned" by his mother. The appellant's mother­in law then instituted the suit, to dispossess the daughter in law and her grand­children, claiming that she no longer has any relationship with her son or her daughter in law. She based her claim to ownership of the suit property on a will. The daughter in law has not admitted the will. Nor has it been proved in RFA (OS) 24/2012 Page 23 probate proceedings. Often, sons move out, or transfer properties or ownership rights, or shares Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 33 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
in immovable properties, at the hint of trouble or discord with their wives, in favour of their relatives. Likewise, the parents of the husband often in such cases "disown" them after the son moves out from the common or "joint" premises owned by either or both his parents, when there is outbreak of marital discord. Courts have to be cautious in their approach, while entertaining and short circuiting suits for possession, which are in effect directed against the plaintiffs' daughter­in law, or else the right of residence in shared households would be a mere chimera, a teasing illusion which the law grandly promises, but is seldom, if ever, able to enforce. In fact, the strategy of "disowning" sons, through public notices or advertisement, is not to be taken lightly. For example, even if a son is disowned by either parent, the death of that parent would, if intestate, still lead to devolution of property upon that son. Indeed, a mere proclamation does not have a dispositive legal effect, breaking all legally relevant familial ties. Thus, absent a deed of relinquishment or other formal deed of partition of the family or separation between the members, the Court must be cautious in denying statutory rights to wives, as against members of the husband's family, on the basis of such tentative facts. To the contrary, if the Court is to place reliance on such acts, benefits enacted by the 2005 Act in favour of the wife would be bypassed on account of alleged, and possibly fleeting, discords between the husband and his family. Indeed, Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 34 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
such an approach is neither legally tenable, nor viable given the scheme of the Act."

25. In the present case, the appellant has placed on record the documents of the year 2018 submitted by the respondent/husband before the UK Embassy, demonstrating his financial capability and undertaking to fund the higher education of their elder daughter Carizma Singh. The documents placed on record shows sufficient bank balance in the account maintained by the respondent/husband. During the submissions, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has not disputed these documents, but merely stated that these documents were never filed by the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. I consider that this submission does not hold any force. Any document which helps the court in reaching to the right conclusion can definitely be looked into at the appellate stage being continuation of trial. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued time and again that educational expenses of the daughters of appellant and respondent were actually met by their grand­mother. This court is fully conscious of the fact that it cannot pass any order against the grand­mother of the children. The responsibility of bringing up the children is on their parents. The grand­mother at her own sweet will can Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 35 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

give anything to their grand­daughter, but this court in this proceeding cannot issue any direction to the grand­mother or for that matter against the brother of the respondent/husband.

26. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. Counsel for the respondent during submissions was very generous in making the statement that the respondent/husband undertakes to take responsibility of entire educational expenses of younger daughter. The respondent has also argued that education expenses for foreign one year education of the elder daughter was to be shouldered by the maternal­grand parents of appellant.

27. I consider that these are the family adjustments and settlements into which this court cannot go into. Admittedly, the complainant/appellant was working, but now she is not working. The respondent has not placed any document on record to show that the appellant is earning from working with her father. Thus, the mother/appellant is unable to take care of the educational expenses of elder daughter. The respondent / husband by taking technical pleas cannot leave her daughter high and dry putting on stake her entire career. The father has the responsibility of his children and it is an obligation upon him to ensure that the career of the children is made in the best possible manner. The Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 36 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

respondent / husband seems to have been a responsible father when he himself had gone to drop his daughter to UK. I consider that now he cannot take back step and is under a legal and moral obligation to fulfill his undertaking. The definition of 'child' as provided under Section 2(b) of the Domestic Violence Act has to be interpreted in an expansionist manner in accordance with the spirit of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the definition is preceded by a Caveat that "unless the context otherwise requires". The duty of the Court is to put life into the legislation to make it alive for the good of victims.

28. As I have discussed above, any cruelty or harassment inflicted upon the children is a direct harassment or violence on the mother. The appellant herein is unable to meet the educational expenses of her elder daughter. If on account of her inability to meet the educational expenses, the daughter had to leave her education in between, it will certainly be a huge emotional harassment inflicted upon the appellant. The intention of the legislation cannot be to deprive the child of her education, if she turns to be major during the course of her education. How it is possible that the father will continue to support the daughter while she was minor but will stop immediately after she attains majority. The case could be different where the child start Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 37 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

earning or getting some financial advantage on attaining majority. The situation could also be different where the mother has sufficient resources to support her major daughter, but here neither the elder daughter Carizma Singh has started earning anything, nor the mother is in a position to support her educational expenses at Durham University, U.K. Therefore, I consider that respondent/husband should be liable to meet the educational expenses of her daughter Carizma Singh and this will actually be in a way of maintenance to the appellant, who is mother of Carizma Singh.

29. The appellant has also prayed for the right of residence and interim maintenance. It is an admitted case that after the marriage in the year 1998, the parties started residing in respondent no. 1's house B­4/54, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and subsequently, they shifed to a rented accommodation bearing K­68, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. The lease deed of Hauz Khas Enclave was entered into by the respondent no.1's joint family company namely Harig India Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the respondent/husband shifted along with his family i.e. appellant and her daughters to K­91, Hauz Khas Enclave. In the year 2015, the parties shifted to Vasant Vihar house. The parties resided in Vasant Vihar house till December 2018 and thereafter, the Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 38 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

premises at Aurbindo Marg was taken on rent by respondent / husband at a monthly rent of Rs. 65,000/­ for a period of two years i.e. till 31.12.2020 with a lock­in period of one year. However, the respondent terminated the lease w.e.f. 31.12.2019. The contention of the appellant is that the Vasant Vihar house is a shared household and the respondent no. 1 / husband is in joint income, assets and expenditures along with his mother Smt. Manju Deshbir Singh and his brother Sh. Karam Singh. It was alleged by the appellant that the portion in which they were residing in Vasant Vihar house was let out subsequently at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/­ and this fact was admitted by the respondent no.1 in his written statement. The plea of the appellant is that she has a right to residence and she either be provided shared household at Vasant Vihar house or the rented accommodation as per their status. The contention of the respondent is that Vasant Vihar house is solely owned by the mother of the respondent and neither the respondent / husband nor the appellant have any right over the same. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also emphasized that the appellant be given maintenance out of the resources with the mother of the respondent as the entire family is jointly in income, assets and expenditures. It has been submitted that the respondents have Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 39 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

simply manipulated the account only in order to deny the appellant and her daughters the rights to residence and maintenance. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel has relied upon Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur (Supra). In this case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after taking into account the judgment in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra (Supra), inter alia held that husband and wife were living as one family with parents of the husband. The brother of the husband and the wife of the brother were also residing in the same house. Both sons were joint in business. Kitchen was run from the income of the joint business. Unfortunately, the husband died but the wife continued to remain in the same house. It was inter alia held that the right of residence under the PWDV Act would have no bearing, but the right of the wife to reside in the property cannot be denied. The case was distinguished from the case of S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra (Supra) i.e. in the case of S.R. Batra (Supra), the house exclusively belonged to the mother­ in­law of Taruna whereas in this case, the property in question was owned by Harpal Singh Arora i.e. father­in­law of the lady. Harpal Singh Arora died intestate and after his death, his wife, two sons and daughter inherited 1/4th share in the said property.

Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 40 of 50

Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

30. It is pertinent to mention here that in Navneet Arora (Supra), it was inter alia held as under :

"43. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that Taruna Batra's case (Supra) is only an authority for the proposition that a wife is precluded under the law from claiming 'right of residence' in a premises, owned by the relatives of the husband, wherein she has lived with her husband separately, but not as a member of the 'joint family' along with the relatives of the husband who own the premises.
44. However, in the later eventuality, if a couple live as members of 'joint family' in a domestic relationship with the relatives of the husband in a premises owned by such relatives of the husband, statutory prescription would indeed enable the wife to claim 'right of residence' since it would fall within the realm of 'shared household' as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Act irrespective of whether she or her husband has any right, title or interest in the 'shared household.'

31. In the present case, the Vasant Vihar house is owned by mother of the respondent/husband. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant or her daughters have lived with the mother of the respondent as a member of the "joint family". Therefore, the case of Navneet Arora (Supra) is respectfully distinguished.

Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 41 of 50

Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

32. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the case of Smt. Preet Satija Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and Anr. 2014 III AD (Delhi) 329. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in alternative, the appellant and her daughters be accommodated in a rented accommodation of the same status by the respondent no.1. It has been submitted that the respondent has falsely set up stage of being in a financial distress. It has been submitted that normally in such proceedings the incomes are not truthfully revealed. The reliance has been placed upon Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde AIR 2007 Delhi 197.

33. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the case of Anupam Gupta Vs. Sumeet Gupta CM (M) 1718/2004 to emphasis that the appellant was enjoying decent lifestyle in her maternal house. The appellant cannot be compelled to live a life of deprivation. Ld. Counsel submits that rented accommodation be provided and maintenance be granted on the basis of the status enjoyed by the respondent and for this, the lifestyle of the respondent may be taken into account. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent may be directed to secure same level of accommodation for the appellant and her Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 42 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

daughters or to pay rent for the same. The reliance has been placed on Eveneet Singh and Ors. Vs. Prashant Chaudhri and Ors. Manu/DE/3497/2010. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued vehemently that appellant is well qualified and was earning handsomely and she has left the job only to harass the respondent knowing fully well that he is in financial distress. It has been stated that Vasant Vihar House is owned by the mother of the respondent and appellant cannot claim any right over the same. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel and Ors. Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel (2008) 4 SCC 649 wherein it was inter alia held as under :

"21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter­in­law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co­sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother­in­law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property.
22. Wholly uncontentious issues have been raised before us Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 43 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs shall be taken a real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self­acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached therefor but not of her mother­in­law."

34. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the celebrated judgment of S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 wherein it was held as under :

"24. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.
25. We cannot agree with this submission.
26. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 44 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.
27. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in­laws or other relatives.
29. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 45 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.
Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a `shared household'."

35. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant had been earning handsomely and even now she is self sufficient to live herself. It has been further submitted that since she is qualified and has the capacity to earn, the interim maintenance cannot be granted. Reliance has been placed on the case of KN Vs. RG 2019 SCC Online Del 7704. The reliance has also been placed on Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta 2016 SCC Online Del 5009. In this case, the reliane was placed on the case of Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100, in which it was inter alia held that "a lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of such matrimonial petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her". In this case, the wife who was a qualified Chartered Accountant was declined interim maintenance. The Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 46 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

reliance has also been placed upon the case of Amit Khanna Vs. Priyanka Khanna 2010 SCC Online Del 2979 wherein it was inter alia held that the maintenance cannot be awarded on the basis of the income of the relatives of the husband.

36. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that while granting maintenance, the court had to only take into account the income of the husband. The income of the other members of the family of the respondent / husband cannot be taken into account. However, at the same time, the court cannot blindly accept the case put forward by the respondent no.1 / husband to deny the maintenance to the wife and her children. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that presently there is any income of the appellant except of the rental income of Rs. 55,000/­ per month from house situated at Beverly Park, DLF Phase­II, MG Road. The husband is claiming to be not earning anything and is in totally financially distress.

37. I consider that merely this plea cannot absolve the respondent / husband from his liability. The document submitted through U.K. Embassy in 2018 reveals that respondent/husband has sufficient economic resources. There is nothing on record to suggest that there is any further change of circumstances after Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 47 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

execution of these documents. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent has not disputed these documents. The respondent / husband is under a legal obligation to provide an rented accommodation to the appellant as per his status. It has been put forth that appellant and her children would be vacating the Aurbindo Marg's house on 30.07.2020. This house was at a monthly rent of Rs.65,000/­. Hence, the respondent / husband is under legal duty to arrange for a suitable residential accommodation of the same status for the appellant and her daughters w.e.f. 01.08.2020. The court hopes that since the present accommodation has to be vacated on 31.07.2020, the appellant might have looked into another alternative accommodation, then in that case, the rent, electricity and water charges of such premises shall be paid by the respondent / husband. The respondent / husband by his act created this strange situation whereby the wife and her daughters were forced to shift from this accommodation. The shifting of the house is not an easy job and it entails huge expenditure. In these circumstances, this court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ in favour of the wife / appellant and against the husband / respondent on ground of causing mental agony and Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 48 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

meeting the expenses for shifting of house. I consider that in such type of cases where the parties are at total variance and there is nothing concrete on the record at the stage of interim maintenance to fix any amount, it is necessary to have some guess work. I consider the total expenditure of the appellant and her two daughters may be assessed at Rs. 1,25,000/­ per month. Though educational expenditures of both the daughters will be borne by the father but there are lot of expenditures other than the educational expenses. Since, the wife has already an income of Rs.55,000/­ per month, I consider that interim maintenance of Rs. 70,000/­ per month for the appellant and her daughters will be sufficient and shall meet the ends of justice.

38. In these circumstances, the appeal is disposed of accordingly with following directions :

1). The respondent / husband shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the appellant herein for causing mental agony and for shifting of house.
2). The respondent / husband shall bear the educational expenses including the expenses of Durham University, U.K
3). The respondent / husband shall pay a sum of Rs.65,000/­ per month on account of monthly rent along with Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 49 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.

electricity and water charges from 01.08.2020 to the appellant and her daughters.

4). The respondent / husband shall pay a sum of Rs.70,000/­ towards interim maintenance to the appellant.

5). The respondent / husband shall not alienate the appellant / wife, sell, transfer, mortgage or create third party interest etc. in the property in Revla Khanpur Village, Near Pushpanjali Firm, Delhi.

39. The impugned order dated 12.03.2020 is set aside. Copy of the judgment along with the TCR be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.

40. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

Digitally signed by DINESH 
                                           DINESH KUMAR      KUMAR SHARMA
                                           SHARMA            Date: 2020.07.29 18:20:27
                                                             +0530

Announced through            (DINESH KUMAR SHARMA)

Electronic Mode on 29.07.2020 District & Sessions Judge New Delhi Criminal Appeal No.87/ 2020 Page No. 50 of 50 Priyanka Singh Vs. Himmat Singh and Anr.