Delhi District Court
Anshuman Verman And Anr vs State And Anr on 29 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05:
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CA No. 291/2024
CNR No. DLST01-008488-2024
CA No. 302/2024
CNR No. DLST01-009171-2024
CA No. 43/2025
CNR No. DLST01-002272-2025
1. Anshuman Verman
S/o Sh. G.D. Verman ... Appellant/Husband
2. G.D. Verman
S/o Late P.C. Verman
C/o NP-72A, Pitampura,
Delhi ... Appellant/accused
Versus
1. State
Through DCP/SHO
2. Pooja
D/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o L-1626/15, Shani Bazar Nala,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062 ... Respondents/Wife
AND
CA No. 388/2024
CNR No. DLST01-010927-2024
1. Anshuman Verman
S/o Sh. G.D. Verman
C/o G.D. Verman,
R/o NP-72A, Pitampura, Delhi ... Appellant/Husband
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2025.08.29
16:40:32
+0530
CA No. 388/2024
Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 1 of 26
Versus
1. State
Through DCP/SHO
2. Pooja
D/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o L-1626/15, Shani Bazar Nala,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062 ... Respondents/Wife
Date of Filing 07.08.2024, 16.08.2024, 11.02.2025 & 20.09.2024
Date of Arguments : 23.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common order, I shall decide four appeals between the same parties, arising out of a common case bearing CT Cases no. 651/2022, titled "Pooja & Anr. vs. Anshuman Verman and Ors.", all passed by Ld. JMFC-02 (Mahila Court), South, Saket Court, New Delhi. Aggrieved of the different impugned orders, appellant preferred CA No. 302/2024 against order dated 23.07.2024, CA No. 43/2025 against order dated 06.02.2025 and CA No. 388/2025 against order dated 21.08.2024. However, the fourth appeal bearing CA No. 291/2024 has been filed for expediting the proceedings on the application U/s 380 BNSS (erstwhile Section 340 Cr.P.C.), filed by the appellants before Ld. Trial Court. Since all the appeals arise out of the same case of D.V. Act between the same parties and similar corroborative issues are involved, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to decide all the appeals vide common order.
Digitally signed byCA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:40:38 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 2 of 26
2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed well within its limitation period.
Appeal No. 291/24 seeking expediting of proceedings on application U/s 379 BNSS (340 Cr.P.C), stay of trial U/s 12 and 23 of D.V. Act till completion of proceedings U/s 340 Cr.P.C. and stay operation of orders dated 22.07.2024 and 23.07.2024.
3. In appeal No. 291/24, the two fold submission of the appellants is to expedite and proceed with their application U/s 379 BNSS (340 Cr.P.C) bearing Misc. Crl. No. 1308/2024 as the action thereon is getting delayed and the proceedings of complaint U/s 12 & 23 of D.V. Act and also operation of orders dated 22.07.2024 and 23.07.2024 passed in D.V. complaint, be stayed till the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.
4. Ld. LAC for the respondent/complainant has opposed the application stating that Ld. Trial Court has already been proceeding the application U/s 379 BNSS (340 Cr.P.C) along with the connected matters and this fact has been mentioned in the Order sheets. It is argued that appellants cannot get such direction passed from this Court directing the Trial Court to dispose off the said application in the manner convenient to the appellants. It is stated that no cause of action arises for the instant appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2025.08.29
16:40:44
+0530
CA No. 388/2024
Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 3 of 26
5. Since, appellants have already filed a separate appeal bearing CA No. 302/2024 assailing the order dated 23.07.2024, wherein the similar relief of stay of operation of said order has been sought, therefore, the same relief can not be dealt parallely in the instant appeal as an exclusive appeal has been filed exclusively against the order dated 23.07.2024. A common relief of stay of order dated 23.07.2024 ought not to have been sought by the appellants in two separate appeals i.e. in the instant appeal and also in a separate appeal specifically filed challenging the said order.
6. As regards the order dated 22.07.2024 on which stay has been sought in the instant appeal, perusal of said order reveals that no directions/compliance has been passed/sought vide said order which requires stay operation. The order sheet dated 22.07.2024 shows that case was adjourned for clarifications/order on application U/s 23 D.V. Act as the court was occupied in recording of statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Hence, the reliefs for stay of operation of order dated 22.07.2024 has no standing in the present appeal.
7. The core issue left to be decided in the present appeal is whether the prayer of appellants seeking directions of this Court for expeditious hearing and disposal of the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. is required to be passed or not. Perusal of Trial Court Record of application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. reveals that on filing of the said application, notice was issued to the non-applicant/wife and matter was listed for arguments Digitally signed by CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:40:52 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 4 of 26 thereon for 04.02.2025. Thereafter, non-applicant/wife did not appear before the Trial Court and notice was issued to her for 28.06.2024, when she was supplied with the copy of the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 22.07.2024, non-applicant/wife did not appear and matter was listed for 05.11.2024. Thereafter, since the Ld. P.O was on leave on 05.11.2024, therefore the Ld. Link JMFC adjourned the matter for purpose fixed for 25.01.2025, when TCR was before this Court in appeal. There is no deliberate delay in adjudicating the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C by the Ld. Trial Court as perusal of record reveals that the adjournments were either due to non-appearance of the non-applicant/wife or leave of the Ld. PO and by the time, arguments could be heard, appellants filed instant appeal and TCR was summoned by this Court. It is obvious that in the absence of non-applicant or her legal aid counsel and Leave of Ld. PO or without supply of copy to the opposite side or when the TCR is before the appellant Court, arguments cannot be heard on the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. It appears that appellants have reacted in an pro-active manner and were impatient to file the instant appeal in a pre-mature manner. It can be seen that the Ld. Trial Court has been patient enough to take up the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. and no unnecessary adjournment have been given on the application. Hence, the instant appeal bearing CA No. 291/24 seeking directions to the Trial Court to expedite trial and disposal of application U/s 340 Cr.P.C., couple with stay of proceedings of complaint U/s 12 D.V. Act and orders Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. Date:
2025.08.29 16:40:58 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 5 of 26 passed therein stands dismissed
------------------------------X-----------------------X---------------------
Appeal No. 388/24 seeking proceedings against order dated 21.08.2024 whereby notice was issued to the non-
applicant/wife on the application for preponement moved by the applicant/husband
8. In the appeal bearing CA no. 388/24, appellant/husband has assailed the order dated 21.08.2024, which is read as under :
"CT Case No. 651/2022Pooja & Anr. Vs. Anshuman Verma 21.08.2024 Present : Respondent in person.
Matter is fixed for 05.11.2024, however, file is taken upon on an application for u/s 25(2) D.V. Act.
Notice of the application be issued to the complainant through all modes on filing PF etc. within fifteen days returnable on next date.
Put up for consideration on the said application on 05.11.2024."
9. It is stated in the appeal that appellant filed an application U/s 25(2) of D.V. Act along with an application for urgent hearing. The Ld. Trial Court issued notice on the application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act for 05.11.2024, however, the Ld. Trial Court thereafter proceeded on maternity leave from 10.09.2024 to 08.03.2025. It is stated that the asset/income and expenditure affidavit of respondent/wife does not match with her account statement. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Digitally signed by CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:41:04 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 6 of 26 Court was requested to allow the application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act on urgent basis due to changing circumstances as financial status of the respondent/wife was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court and despite that she was treated as 'aggrieved person'. It was prayed in the application that the order dated 31.05.2023 whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- was granted be set aside. Further, it is also prayed that no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant Anshuman Verman as respondent/wife has concealed her financial status. It is further argued that the request of the appellant to decide his application on urgent basis was taken casually by the Ld. Trial Court by adjourning the matter for 05.11.2024, which caused injustice and harassment to him. The appellant has reiterated the ground taken by him in his application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act. It is prayed in the instant appeal that the application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act may be allowed expeditiously or the matter may be remanded back. It is prayed that order dated 31.05.2023 granting interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- and its execution order dated 22.07.2024 be, set aside.
10. Ld. LAC for the respondent did not file any formal reply to the appeal and straightway argued. She argued that appellant challenged a particular order dated 21.08.2024 whereby notice was issued to the complainant/wife on the application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act filed by the appellant/husband and same is an interlocutory order. It is argued that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant just to delay the trial before Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.29 16:41:10 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 7 of 26 the Ld. Trial Court and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued on the lines of the grounds taken by him in the appeal. It is argued that respondent/wife has concealed her financial status as credentials of her income affidavit does not match with her bank statement and she has falsely represented her to be aggrieved person. It is argued that on the basis of the income affidavit of respondent/wife, wherein facts are concealed, the Ld. Trial Court fixed interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- pm vide order dated 31.05.2023 and execution order dated 22.07.2024 was passed. It is prayed that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order along with order dated 31.05.2023 and 22.07.2024 are liable to be set aside.
12. In the instant case, perusal of the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 reveals that it is an formal order issuing notice to the non-applicant/wife on the application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act of the applicant/husband. Perusal of record reveals that while the said application was pending adjudication before the Ld. Trial Court and Ms. Rashi Raheja, Ld. JMFC was on maternity leave, the appellant has filed the present appeal seeking direction to allow his application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act and expediting it or stay of interim order dated 31.05.2023 and execution order dated 22.07.2024, which are not subject matter of instant appeal. It may be mentioned that since the application U/s 25(2) D.V. Act which is still pending Digitally signed by CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:41:17 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 8 of 26 adjudication before the Ld. Trial Court and is yet to be decided, no appeal lie against the said pending application. As regards the relief sought for stay of interim maintenance order dated 31.05.2023, it is relevant to point out that appeal against the order dated 31.05.2023 has already been dismissed by the Ld. Special Judge-NDPS/ASJ, South vide order dated 13.03.2024, which fact has not been disclosed by the appellant in the present appeal. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with the order dated 31.05.2023 and its execution order dated 22.07.2024, when appeal against the said order has already been dismissed by the Ld. ASJ. Perusal of the appeal reveals that though the same has been filed against a particular order dated 21.08.2024 regarding issuance of notice on application U/s 25(2) of D.V. Act, however, multiple reliefs for stay of entire proceedings U/s 12 and 23 of DV Act and execution petition have been sought, which has nothing to do with the impugned order challenged in the instant appeal.
13. Ld. counsel for the respondent/wife has argued that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature against which appeal does not lie. She argued that vide impugned order no substantial right of parties have been decided to bring it into ambit of final order.
14. At the outset, since the appellant/husband is claiming that the present appeal is not against the interlocutory order whereas the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/wife is claiming Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:41:24 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 9 of 26 that the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 is in fact an interlocutory order and therefore, appeal is not maintainable. It is imperative that before proceeding to decide the appeal on merits, it is to be examined whether the order dated 21.08.2024 is interlocutory order or not.
15. The essential attribute of an interlocutory order is that it merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the case or collateral to the issue sought but not a final decision or judgment on the matter in issue.
16. Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that the power of revision conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. shall not be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or any other proceedings. Thus, it is an undisputed legal position that a revision petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order at all.
17. In the case titled as "Amarnath & Ors Vs. State of Haryana" reported at AIR 1977 SC 2185, while discussing the term 'interlocutory order', Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"The term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad sense and include orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against the order, because that would be against the Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:41:30 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 10 of 26 very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397. Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2). But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial can not be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
18. In another case titled as "Central Bank of India Vs. Gokal Chand" reported at AIR 1967 SC 799, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"............ orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of a document on the relevancy of a question. All these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final adjudication and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their case in the pending proceedings. They regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties."
19. The term interlocutory order has not been defined in Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of V. C. Shukla Vs. State reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 962 has given the following observation in para no. 23 regarding the nature of interlocutory order.
"Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. Other words in the ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceedings, suit or trial, but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:41:38 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 11 of 26 sense without having to resort to criminal procedure code or any statute. That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, an this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in S.(11) of the Act."
20. In, 'Anisa Begam Vs. Masoom Ali & Ors' 30 (1986) DLT 107, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, observed that order u/s 451 Cr.P.C. is essentially interlocutory in nature since the order dismissing the superdari application did not decide the rights of the parties and was an interlocutory order against which no revision would lie.
21. The impugned order does not decide any valuable right as only notice on the application U/s 25(2) of D.V. Act filed by appellant/husband was issued. Moreover, the said application is yet to be decided by the Ld. Trial Court. No substantial right of the appellant/husband has been decided or effected by way of impugned order. Thus, the impugned order passed on application whereby notice has been issued to the respondent/wife is interlocutory in nature and appellant has filed the instant appeal in a pre-mature manner as the said application is yet to be decided by Ld. Trial Court. Hence, the appeal against said order in view of section 397 (2) CrPC is not maintainable.
22. With these observations present appeal bearing CA No. 388/2024 stands dismissed being devoid of merits.
------------------------------X-----------------------X---------------------
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAMPURSHOTTAM PATHAK CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PATHAK Date:
Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2025.08.29 16:41:46 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 12 of 26 Appeal No. 302/2024 against order dated 23.07.2024 whereby respondent/wife was granted residence right to reside on the first floor of the property bearing Flat No. 66, Pocket-9, Sector-22, Rohini
23. In appeal no. 302/24, filed by the appellant/husband, he has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 whereby residence right was granted to the respondent/wife. The relevant extracts of the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 are reproduced below:-
"During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. LAC for the complainant that respondents are residing in Pitampura whereas the other flat in Rohini is vacant. Based on which, a report was called from the Protection Officer with regard to the present status of flat no. 66, Pocket-9, Sector-22, Rohini, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the property"]. As per the report of the Protection Officer, respondents refused to provide keys of the above house rather stated that inquiries be made from the neighbors. It was found by the Protection Officer that the above property was a three-storey building and neighbors told her that the property is vacant for a long time as the owner somewhere else. It is further stated by her that the house looked decent and seemed liveable. .... Further, it is not disputed by both the parties that after the marriage of the complainant, she along with respondents resided in the property. It was submitted by the complainant, during the course of arguments, that she along with respondent no. 1 resided on the first floor of the property and as per the respondents, they continued to stay in the property till 12.03.2021, after which they shifted to Pitampura. Therefore, first floor of the property where the complainant resided with her husband in a domestic relationship. After her marriage is the shared household and as per section 19 D.v. Act, the complainant has a right Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:41:53 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 13 of 26 to reside in the shared household especially when the shared household is lying vacant as the respondents have shifted to Pitampura and the complainant is staying in her parental home. The arguments of the respondent no. 1 that the property does not belong to him is not tenable as it is well settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter titled as "Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja", decided on 15.10.2020 (AIRONLINE 2020 SC 784). ... Therefore, in view of facts and circumstance as stated above, a fit case is made out in favour of the complainant with respect to the property and residence right is hereby granted to the complainant to reside on the first floor of the property. Respondent is directed to provide key of the first floor on of the property to the complainant within four weeks from today. Respondent is further directed to not obstruct entry of the complainant in the property and not to dispossess the complainant from the first floor of the property without following the due process of law.
Copy of the said order be sent to the SHO of the concerned Police Station for record and implementation of the order contained therein and with directions to give immediate assistance to the aggrieved, if any complaint in this regard is made by the aggrieved to them. Further a copy be also sent to the Protection Officer to ensure that she can be contacted by the aggrieved for assistance in compliance of this order.
Application U/s 23 read with Section 19 D.V. act is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties."
24. Aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned order dated 23.07.2024, appellant/husband has preferred the instant appeal on the following grounds:-
(a) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the financial transactions of the respondent/wife does not show her condition as miserable and incapable person as she has CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 Digitally signed by Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.29 16:42:01 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 14 of 26 been transferring funds in her parents account from 2020 to 2023 after her resignation on 31.01.2020;
(b) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent/wife was in private job since 2011 having sufficient experience and online transactions indicate her earnings from other sources, which she has concealed from the Court;
(c) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent/wife has filed a false income affidavit showing her miserable condition and her dependency on her parents, which is contrary to her bank statement;
(d) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant/husband is a newly enrolled Advocate with BCD in 2020 and obtained certificate of practice in 2022, since when he has been contesting his own case. The grant of interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent/wife vide order dated 31.05.2023 has been awarded without assessment of financial status of appellant, which order was upheld in appeal vide order dated 13.03.2023;
(e) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the complaints lodged by the appellants qua incidents dated 16.08.2020, 25.10.2020, 04.01.2021 and 27.02.2021 before declaring respondent/wife as 'Aggrieved person' U/s 2(a) of D.V. Act;
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 16:42:06 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 15 of 26
(f) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the application U/s 23 D.V. Act was decided on false report of Protection Officer, who failed to verify acts of violence incidents suffered by appellants at Matrimony home i.e. H.no. 66, Pocket-9, Sector-22, Rohini from PS Aman Vihar;
(g) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are various lapses in the report of the Protection Officer, respondent/wife and LAC Sh. Ankur Yadav;
(h) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellants left the premises on 12.03.2021 due to sufferings given by the respondent/wife as she want to grab the property;
In light of the aforesaid, appellants have prayed for setting aside of impugned order dated 23.07.2024.
25. Though no formal reply to the appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondent/wife, however, Ld. LAC has straightway argued the appeal. It is contended on behalf of the respondent/wife that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order after considering all the contentions raised by the appellants in the instant appeal. It is argued that in order to deprive the respondent/wife and her daughter of their valuable right, appellants have posed the respondent/wife to be having sufficient means of income, however, they have failed to prove that respondent is working or earning. It is argued that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally signed byCA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. Date:
2025.08.29 16:42:13 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 16 of 26
26. Appellants have argued on the lines of the grounds taken by them in the appeal and prayed that the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
27. Perusal of the impugned order and the findings given therein reveal that Flat no. 66, Pocket-9, Sector 22, Rohini, New Delhi is the shared household of the parties wherein they stayed after the marriage together till 12.03.2021. This fact does not require much elaboration as in the appeal itself the said property has been admitted as the matrimony home, where counter alleged acts of domestic violence took place and appellants lodged complaints, within the jurisdiction i.e. PS Aman Vihar. Appellants have re-agitated the grant of interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- vide order dated 31.05.2023 to the respondent/wife in this appeal, ignoring the fact that the appeal against said order was already dismissed way back on 13.03.2024, which is not the subject matter of the instant appeal. Appellants cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue of grant of interim maintenance, time and again, when the appeal has already been dismissed. The prayer made in the instant appeal except setting aside of residence order, are irrelevant and baseless and having no binding/relevance to the impugned order, challenged in instant appeal.
28. The core issue involved in the instant appeal is whether respondent/wife is entitled for residence right granted to her vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024 or not. Appellants Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. Date:
2025.08.29 16:42:19 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 17 of 26 who have been contesting their matter of their own contends that respondent/wife has been in job and is capable of earning, having sound financial status which is apparent from transactions in her bank statement. It is further contended that respondent/wife does not fall in the category of an 'aggrieved person' or is entitle for maintenance and residence right.
29. There is a daughter Baby Aarushi (DOB-09.03.2021) born out of wedlock of the parties, who at present is aged about 4+ years and is in the custody of respondent/wife. Perusal of record reveals that it is an admitted case that respondent/wife has not been working ever since 31.01.2020. Parties got married on 09.02.2020 and have been living separately since 12.03.2021 whereas the daughter was born on 09.03.2021 i.e. 3 days prior to the birth of the daughter. It may be mentioned that the parties got separated almost around a year of their marriage as appellants vacated the matrimonial home i.e. Flat no. 66, Pocket-9, Sector 22, Rohini, New Delhi on 12.03.2021. The respondent/wife and her daughter are residing with her parents since then. It is in common knowledge that at the time of separation, respondent/was having an infant child of 3 days and she cannot be expected to work and earn in that condition, even if, she is capable of earning;
30. The report of the Protection Officer reveals that appellants locked the matrimonial house no. 66, Pocket-9, Sector 22, Digitally signed by CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:42:28 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 18 of 26 Rohini, New Delhi, which is a three-storied building and its neighbors informed that the same is vacant from a long time. As per report of Protection Officer, appellants have refused to provide keys of the vacant house to her however, the matrimonial house seems good and habitable. From the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the admitted fact by the appellants, they have vacated the matrimonial house of Rohini and are living separately at Pitampura. It can be safely inferred that despite availability of sufficient living space in the matrimonial house of Rohini, which is a three- storied building being locked from long time, respondent/wife and the minor daughter are compelled to live at her parental house. Even otherwise, it was the appellants who left the matrimonial house after locking it and shifted to another house just 3 days after the delivery of the respondent/wife, when she was in helpless state. The only issue raised by the appellants denying the residence right is that the respondent/wife is having good financial status but has failed to establish any employment or regular income of the respondent/wife. Even if respondent/wife is capable of earning, she cannot be denied residence right at her matrimonial house. The bank statement of the respondent/wife relied upon by the appellants belongs to year 2020 to 2023 and not recent. No plausible explanation whatsoever has been given by the appellants to deny the right of residence to the respondent/wife on one floor of the matrimonial house, specially when the entire three storied house is lying vacant for a long time. Even otherwise, no Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2025.08.29 16:42:35 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 19 of 26 apprehension can be raised that appellants are having threat from the respondent/wife, as they themselves are admittedly living separately at Pitampura.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 granting residence right to the respondent/wife and her minor daughter in the shared household of the matrimonial house. The impugned order stands upheld and the appeal bearing CA no. 302/2024 stands dismissed.
------------------------------X-----------------------X---------------------
Appeal No. 43/2025 against order dated 06.02.2025 whereby appellant/husband was directed to cooperate in birth registration of child for his School admission purpose by sharing OTP and with direction to pay Rs. 20,000/- to respondent/wife within 3 days
32. In the Appeal No. 43/2025, appellant/husband has challenged the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 directing him to pay Rs. 20,000/- within 3 days to respondent/wife for admission purpose of the child. It was further directed that appellant shall share OTP with the respondent for the purpose of birth registration of the child. The relevant extracts of the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 are reproduced below:-
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 2025.08.29 16:42:42 Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 20 of 26 "Respondent no. 1 has argued that the hcild I question is not his, an appeal against the order dated 23.07.2024 is pending.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that respondent is deliberately not sharing OTP which is required for registration of birth of child and preparation of birth certificate by the authorities. Ld. Counsel has further argued that respondent is doing so in order to prevent the cild from being admitted to school so that he could avoid paying school fees of the child.
Perusal of the record shows that in order dated 23.07.2024 of Ld. Predecessor it had specifically been mentioned that respondents deliberately refused to provide keys of the house in Rohini. As per the order of Ld. Special Judge/NDPS/Ld. ASJ/South/Saket/Newe Delhi Sh. Gaurav Gupta dated 13.03.2024 the contention of respondents with respect to paternity of the child was discussed and decided in paras 16-22. Hence, as the issue has already been decided by the Ld. Sessions Court, the same cannot be re-agitated at interim stage. Also considering submissions of the respondents that order dated 23.07.2024 has been challenged, no material has been brought to show that order of Ld. Sessions Court dated 13.03.2024 has been challenged.
The respondent no. 1 has submitted that his mobile number is not required for birth certificate of the child whereas complainant has submitted that mobile number of both parents is required. Complainant has further submitted that she urgently requires Rs. 20,000/- for admission of the minor child to school. Hence, as order for interim maintenance is not under challenge and appeal qua same has already been dismissed by Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 and considering the urgent need of child of funds for school admission, respondent no. 1 is directed to deposit in the account of complainant at least Rs. 20,000/- within 3 days.
Respondent no. 1 has not given any reasonable ground why he is not willing to cooperate in registration of birth of child.
Respondent no. 1 is directed to share OTP for the purpose of school admission of child. In case of non- compliance, complainant is at liberty to call and sent a Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2025.08.29 16:42:48 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 21 of 26 message to respondent no. 1 in this regard and file screenshots showing non-compliance despite intimation."
33. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 06.02.2025, appellants have challenged the same on the following grounds :
(a) that the respondent/wife may admit her child in Govt. School where very less fees is charged and even expenses of book and dress are provided by the School authorities free of cost;
(b) that respondent/wife has concealed her income from the Court and it is surprising as to how she was sustaining ever since separation and her resignation and also after filing D.V. Act petition;
(c) that in case, appellant/husband comply with the directions of impugned order dated 06.02.2025, the appeal pending U/s 340 Cr.P.C. vide CA No. 294/24 would become invalid;
(d) that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the guidelines of sharing OTP as the same can lead to serious financial losses, vulnerable attack by fraudster;
34. The appellants have argued on the lines of the grounds taken by them in the appeal.
35. On the other hand, Ld. LAC for the respondent/wife has argued that appellant/husband has been delaying birth Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:42:54 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 22 of 26 registration of the daughter by avoiding the sharing of OTP in order to deprive her of her basic right to education and grant of educational expenses. It is argued that non-payment of Rs. 20,000/- and non-sharing of OTP for birth registration, directed vide impugned order, would hamper admission of the child in school. It is prayed that the appeal has been filed to delay the trial and gain time and the same is liable to be dismissed.
36. It has been consistently seen that appellants have been deliberately deviating the issue involved in the impugned order by seeking multiple reliefs, which are not the subject matter of the impugned order, which leads to wastage of judicial time of this Court. The reliefs for which specific appeal have been separately filed are being re-agitated in other appeals, which has no relevance or binding thereon. The limited issue concerning the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 in the present appeal no. 43/2025 is with regard to directions for payment of Rs. 20,000/- for school admission of child and sharing of OTP by him to her for birth registration of the child. It is shocking to note that despite the child being now turning to 5 years (4+ as of now), her birth certificate has not been issued without which she cannot be admitted in School. Though the impugned order finds mention that the appellant has disputed the parentage of the child to be not his child, however, the said ground has not been taken by the appellant in the instant appeal. Even otherwise, perusal of the order dated 13.03.2024, passed in appeal reveals that the issue of Digitally signed by CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:43:00 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 23 of 26 paternity of the child has already been meticulously dealt and decided. There is no point re-agitating or commenting on the said issue when the same has already been decided by the Ld. Sessions Court in appeal vide order dated 13.03.2024.
37. Appellant/husband has stated that respondent/wife shall admit the child in Govt. School where fee is low and book and uniform are given free of cost. It may be mentioned that appellant/husband himself is a qualified B.Tech and LLB and is an practicing Advocate but he wants his daughter to study in a Govt. School only to avoid payment of her educational expenses, which is a very shameful plea on his part. Appellants, in addition are having two separate houses i.e. H.no. 66, Pocket-9, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi, which is a three storied building and 72A, NP Block, Purvi Marg, Maurya Enclave, Near Gopal Mandir, Pitampura, New Delhi, which shows the financial status of the appellants.
However, still appellants want that the daughter should study in a Govt. School. It appears that by depriving the child of her educational rights, appellant is trying to use the child as a tool to retaliate with the respondent/wife to achieve their ulterior goals.
38. Appellants have raised the plea that as to how respondent/wife was sustaining after separation and resignation from job, if she has no financial resources. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that respondent/wife along with her daughter is living at her parental house and has no independent source of income. Therefore, it is obvious that Digitally signed CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:43:06 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 24 of 26 she must be seeking financial assistance from her family, friends and relatives for her survival, which otherwise is the duty of the appellant/husband to maintain them in the given situation.
39. Appellants have taken the plea that in case they comply with the directions of the Ld. Trial Court contained in the impugned order, their application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. would become invalid. It may be mentioned that application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. has no binding as the same has been filed against the alleged discrepancies in the income affidavit and corresponding bank statement of the respondent/wife. Any order passed on the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. will have no binding effect on the directions passed by the Ld. Trial Court for sharing of OTP for the purpose of obtaining birth certificate of child from Municipal Authorities. Moreover, the appeal against the interim maintenance order has already been dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 13.03.2024. Hence, in no manner the ground that compliance of the impugned order by sharing OTP and giving Rs. 20,000/- towards School admission, would hamper his application U/s 340 Cr.P.C as the same has been filed for altogether a different purposes. Appellants have taken the plea that sharing of the OTP can cause serious financial losses and vulnerable attack by fraudsters, which is an frivolous ground as appellant/husband is a well educated person and qualified B.Tech and LLB and is conscious of repercussions of sharing OTP. Even otherwise one has to share OTP for other purposes also. The flat denial by the CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 Digitally signed by Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.29 16:43:12 +0530 CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 25 of 26 appellant/husband to share OTP for registration of birth of the child for her school admission, leads to deliberate misconduct on the part of the appellants, for which adverse inference is drawn against them.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 directing the appellant/husband to share OTP with the respondent/wife for registration of birth certificate of the daughter and give Rs. 20,000/- towards school admission of the child. The impugned order stands upheld and the appeal bearing CA no. 43/2025 stands dismissed.
41. Accordingly, all the 4 appeals filed by the appellants against on different pretext stands dismissed.
42. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to any expressions on the merits of the case and the learned Judge will hear the matter as per law without being guided by any observations made in this order. Trial court record alongwith copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court.
43. One copy of judgment under the signatures of the undersigned be placed in CA No. 291/2024 and digitally signed copies thereof be placed in other three appeals.
44. All the four appeal files be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.29 16:43:22 +0530 Announced in the open court (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) on 29th August, 2025 Additional Sessions Judge-05, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi. CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. CA No. 388/2024 Anshuman Verman vs. State & Anr. Page 26 of 26