Delhi District Court
Rita Saklani vs Raj Kumar Saklani on 6 December, 2025
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA NO.:- 54560/2016
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-008126-2025
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Rita Saklani
W/o Raj Kumar Saklani
D/o Sh. Bodh Raj
R/o 355, GH-5 & 7,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 .... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Raj Kumar Saklani
S/o Sh. Basant Lal Saklani
Office Address:-
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kumar Hatti,
Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173229
2. Protection Officer (proforma respondent)
3. SHO (proforma respondent) ....Respondents
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY
Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06
17:25:00
+0530
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.1 of 25
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
Date of institution of the appeal : 23/09/2016
Date on which judgment was reserved : 21/11/2025
Date of judgment : 06/12/2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "D.V. Act") filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13/07/2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment') passed by Ms. Anu Aggarwal, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-02), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No. 134/1/12 titled as "Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors."
In the present appeal, appellant has prayed to issue the notice of the present appeal to the respondents and to admit the appeal against impugned judgment.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present appeal as stated in the present appeal are that the appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 13/07/2016 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Marriage of the appellant and respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 23/08/1994 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi and thereafter, they started residing at Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:25:12 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.2 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
matrimonial house bearing no. J-37-A, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. One child namely Ashutosh Saklani was born out of the said wedlock on 04/07/1996. At the time of marriage, parents of the appellant had given jewellery of 1.5 Lakh, furniture and utensils and same were left in the custody of her in- laws. Appellant's in-laws and her husband have abused, harassed, physically and mentally tortured and taunted the appellant and having ill-motive to earn money by using the appellant in prostitution trade. Respondent had slapped the appellant in the year 1995, due to which, ear of the appellant was got injured. Respondent never given a single penny to the appellant and also did not make arrangement for the job of the appellant. Parents of the appellant had purchased a LIG flat no. 355, G-5 & 7, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and she started living there with the respondent but the cruelties did not stop. Cruelties were committed by the respondent upon the appellant on one pretext or another. Appellant was beaten by the respondent in October, 1996 on the occasion of Karvachauth. Respondent had also beaten the appellant on 02/03/2002. Appellant and her parents had tried to reconcile the matter with the respondent but all in vain. Ultimately, due to abovesaid cruelties of the respondent, appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent. Respondent had failed to pay any maintenance to the appellant and she had left with no option but to file the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. Respondent had filed the reply denying all the allegations made in the complaint. Divorce decree was passed in favour of the respondent on 15/12/2009. Appellant and respondent lead the evidence by way of affidavits. Appellant and respondent were not examined in the said case. Respondent had Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:25:19 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.3 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
admitted that he would take care of the son of the appellant. Appellant has been awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in the proceedings u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. and she has been awarded the interim maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month u/s. 24 HMA and the amount of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also adjusted in the interim maintenance.
3. Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds, as mentioned in the present appeal.
Grounds of appeal- Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts as stated in the complaint and passed the impugned judgment on the conjectures and surmises and the same is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the income of the appellant is not sufficient to live the same status as of the respondent. It is the settled law that the wife is entitled to live with the same status as her husband is enjoying. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the income of the respondent. Appellant is entitled to same level of life, which she was enjoying while staying with her husband. Keeping in mind the status of the parties, the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month be granted to the appellant/complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till she is legally entitled to receive the same. Ld. Trial Court has grossly erred in observing that the complainant sought compensation of Rs.5 Lakh. Ld. Trial Court has grossly erred in awarding a sum of Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses, whereas the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:25:26 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.4 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
appellant had incurred Rs.30,000/- in the litigation. It is the admitted fact that the respondent had a very good salary. Respondent is liable to bear the expenses of the litigation as it is the result of his non-fulfilling his social and moral obligation towards the appellant. Ld. Trial Court has grossly erred in observing that the complainant has sought restrainment order against the respondent and same was also not granted to the appellant.
4. Respondent no.1 has contested the present appeal of the appellant by filing detailed reply, wherein preliminary objections have been taken by the respondent no.1 that the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed as the same is a gross misuse of process of law. Appellant has filed the present appeal to harass the respondent no.1 and it is the wastage of precious time of the Court. The present appeal is time barred.
On merits, the para-wise reply has been given by the respondent no.1 to the present appeal of the appellant by denying the allegations/contentions of the appellant and the respondent no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal with heavy cost.
5. This Court already heard the arguments on the present appeal advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by counsel for the appellant that impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:25:33 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.5 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
mentioned in the present appeal and reliefs prayed by the appellant in her petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act be granted in favour of the appellant. On the other hand, it was submitted by counsel for the respondent no.1 that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment in accordance with law and the present appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 13/07/2016 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
(a) The petitioner/complainant (appellant herein) had filed the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act.
In the aforesaid petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, it is mentioned that the marriage of the petitioner/complainant Rita Saklani and respondent Raj Kumar Saklani was solemnized on 23/08/1994 according to Hindu rites in Delhi and out of the said wedlock, one child namely Ashutosh Saklani was born on 04/07/1996, who is presently in the custody of the respondent. It is also mentioned that petitioner/complainant Rita Saklani and respondent Raj Kumar Saklani are living separately since 23/09/2002. It is also mentioned that the petitioner/complainant was subjected to mental as well as physical torture and she was harassed and ill treated with cruelty by the respondent. It is also mentioned that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent and she Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:25:44 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.6 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
is an aggrieved person as per D.V. Act.
(b) Domestic Incident Report was called from the Protection Officer and same was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
(c) Respondent had contested the aforesaid petition/complaint of the petitioner/complainant by filing written statement/reply, wherein he denied the contents/allegations mentioned in the petition/complaint and prayed for dismissal of the petition/complaint of the petitioner/complainant.
(d) Replication to the written statement/reply has been filed by the petitioner/complainant, wherein she denied the contents of the written statement/reply and re-iterated the contents of her petition/complaint.
(e) Thereafter, petitioner/complainant had led her evidence by filing her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.C1, wherein she reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act.
Petitioner/complainant got examined herself as PW-1. PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent.
PW-1 in her testimony had relied upon the copies of complaints/letters Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/16, copies of affidavits of Sh. Bodh Raj and Smt. Shashi Mahajan Ex.PW-1/17, copy of order dated 17/08/2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAT App. 31/2010 Ex.PW-1/18 and copy of order dated 31/08/2010 passed in execution no. 29/2008 Ex.PW-1/19.
(f) Respondent had also lead evidence and got examined RW-2 Sh. M.S. Rawat, Lab Assistant, Delhi School Tribunal, Timarpur, Delhi. RW-2 was cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner/complainant. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:25:50 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.7 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the said case, no witness had been examined as RW-1.
(g) Thereafter, final arguments were heard by the Ld. Trial Court.
Vide impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court, petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant was dismissed. While dismissing the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act, it was held by the Ld. Trial Court that:-
"16. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that there is one child and the child is in the custody of the respondent. The petitioner has sought various reliefs in the present suit.
1) She has sought the amount of Rs.5000/ as monthly rent for alternative accommodation for herself and for the child. The petitioner has stated in her cross examination that she is living in Flat no. GH 5 and 7/355, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi since 1995. She has also admitted that she lived with the respondent in the abovesaid property from 1995 till 2002. She has stated that abovesaid property belongs to her parents. She has admitted that her parents is residing in Faridabad. However, it is claimed by the respondent that he had purchased the abvoesaid property. The onus is upon the petitioner to prove the capacity in which she is residing in the abovesaid property.Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR
VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:25:56 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.8 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
However, petitioner has not placed on record any documents to show that the abovesaid property is being purchased by her parents. The petitioner has stated in her affidavit that the respondent left her company alongwith the child on 21-22.09.2002. It is admitted fact that the child is residing with the respondent. However, the petitioner has sought the amount of Rs.5,000/ for alternative accommodations for herself and minor child. When she is not maintaining the minor child and is not in the custody of the minor child, then how come she claimed the amount for the minor child. It is clear that she has made wrong submissions before the court. She has tried to mislead the court. In view of the fact that she is already in the possession of an accommodation of which she could not prove the capacity in which she is residing and the fact that she has misled the court by claiming the amount of alternate accommodation for minor child knowing very well that minor child is not residing with her, she is not entitled to the abovesaid relief.
2) She has sought the relief of return of her Stridhan articles. The petitioner has stated in her affidavit that her entire dowry items I.e Jewelery, furniture and utensils were remained with the respondent. She has stated that she had shifted in the rented accommodation with the respondent. Thereafter, she shifted to Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:26:02 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.9 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
the above accommodation with the respondent. She has not filed any list of dowry articles. She has not led any evidence to prove that the dowry articles were given in her marriage by her parents. She has simply stated that entire dowry items i.e. Jewelery, furniture and utensils were left with in laws but she has not given description of any of the item. She has not placed on record any bill or any other document to show that the said items were belonging to her and were given in her marriage. A general allegations has been made and even the items as stated by her are unidentifiable as no description, photographs or bills have been filed. In view of the same, she is not entitled to the above said relief.
3) She has sought an amount of Rs. 10,13,351/- as loss of earning from the respondent. The petitioner has not proved as to how the above said amount has been calculated by her or how the respondent was responsible for the above said loss of earning. It is stated by the petitioner that she is M.Phil, B.Ed and was working as postgraduate teacher. Nowhere in her complaint or evidence, she has stated that she could not pursue her job or there was any loss of earning to her due to the conduct of the respondent. In view of the same, she is not entitled to the above said relief.
4) She has sought the maintenance of Rs. 6000/ - per month Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:26:08 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.10 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
from the respondent. The petitioner has stated that she has already been awarded maintenance of R.2,500/- per month in proceedings u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. She has also been awarded the interim maintenance of Rs.4500/- per month u/s 24 of H.M.A. The amount awarded in the petition u/s. 125 Cr.P.C is adjustable in the interim maintenance awarded u/s. 24 of H.M.A. Since, the maintenance has already been awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to the above said relief from this court.
5) She has sought the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and litigation of Rs. 22,000/-. On the basis of the above observations, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation or litigation expenses.
6) She has sought the restrainment order against the Domestic Violence alleged to have been committed on her by the respondent. The petitioner has admitted that she is residing separately from the respondent. Since petitioner is residing separately from the respondent, no such restrainment order is warranted.
17. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of."
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06
17:26:13
+0530
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.11 of 25
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
(h) Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant has challenged the
impugned judgment dated 13/07/2016 passed by the Ld. Trial Court by way of present appeal u/s. 29 D.V. Act. Vide judgment dated 06/08/2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the appeal of the appellant was allowed and it was held that:-
"14. In the cross-examination, conducted on behalf of respondent, nothing has been suggested to the appellant that she was not entitled for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month except suggesting that she has been granted maintenance in proceedings U/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and also U/Sec. 24 of HMA Act so the claim of the appellant remained unrebutted demanding Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the same is allowed from the date of filing of petition till she is legally entitled for the same excluding the amount for maintenance already received U/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and U/Sec. 24 H.M. Act.
15. The Ld. Trial Court has also not given any reason as to why the appellant is not entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.
16. The appellant had claimed Rs.5 lacs for harassing, torturing and illegal dowry demand and abused with filthy language since the marriage by the respondent. Nothing has been suggested to her in the cross-Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06
17:26:19
+0530
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.12 of 25
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
examination that she was not harassed, tortured or illegal dowry demand were not raised in any manner. So, the claim of the appellant for compensation remained unrebutted. So, she is also entitled for this compensation. Same are the reasoning of this Court in respect of litigation expenses as claimed by the appellant of Rs.22,000/-, which have been disallowed by the Ld. Trial Court without any reason. Accordingly, this Court allows compensation of Rs.5 lacs and the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.
17. With above observations and findings, the appeal of appellant is allowed on these two grounds, which were challenged.".
(i) Thereafter, the respondent Raj Kumar Saklani has challenged the judgment dated 06/08/2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court by way of CRL M.C. No.5643/2019 and Crl. M.A. 39680/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide order dated 17/07/2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, order dated 06/08/2019 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court was set-aside and present criminal appeal was remanded back for reconsideration afresh.
It was observed/directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid order dated 17/07/2025 that:- Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:26:25 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.13 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
" 8. A careful examination of the impugned order reveals that the Appellate Court has reversed the well-reasoned findings of the Mahila Court without engaging in any meaningful analysis of the underlying evidence or legal standards governing grant of maintenance under the DV Act. The award of INR 10,000/- per month as maintenance and INR 5,00,000/- as compensation appears to rest solely on the ground that the Respondent's claims were not specifically denied in cross-examination. Such a mechanical approach fails to satisfy the requirement of judicial reasoning, especially where the Trial Court had declined relief on detailed appreciation of facts. The Appellate Court has not undertaken any assessment of the parties' comparative financial capacities or whether the conditions for compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act were met. This omission, in the considered view of this Court, vitiates the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06th August, 2019 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. While undertaking this exercise, the Appellate Court shall take into consideration the affidavit of income and expenditure filed by the Petitioner before this Court pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01st July, 2025, as well as the affidavit filed by the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06
17:26:31
+0530
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.14 of 25
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
Respondent in MAT.APP. 31/2010. Either party is at liberty to place copies of these affidavits before the Appellate Court. If so warranted, the Appellate Court may direct the parties to file fresh affidavits disclosing their current income, expenditure, assets, and liabilities. Such reconsideration shall be undertaken and concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "
7. Law relating to determining the quantum of maintenance was elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rajnesh V. Neha" {(2021) 2 SCC 324} and it was held that following factors should be taken into consideration for determining the amount of maintenance :-
"1. Status of the parties
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant
3.The independent income and property of the claimant
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:26:36 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.15 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation
11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s 24 of the Act
12. Age and employment of the parties
13. Duration of marriage
14. Financial needs and resources of the parties
15. Employability of wife
16. Maintenance of minor children
17. Serious disability or ill-health of a spouse or children
18. Right to residence."
8. It is well settled law that the objective of granting interim/ permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of the marriage and not as a punishment to the other spouse. It is also well settled that it is the duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and children.
It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Anju Garg & Anr. V. Deepak Kumar Garg" {2022 SCC Online SC 1314} that:-
"........The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:26:41 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.16 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able- bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute..."
It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rajnesh V. Neha" {(2021) 2 SCC 324} that:-
".....An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligation for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court."
It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Shamima Farooqui V. Shahid Khan" {(2015) 5 SCC 705} that:-
".....Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right....
....... This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:26:47 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.17 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
as long as he is capable of earning."
It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena & Ors." {(2015) 6 SCC 353} that:-
"In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."
9. In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act, it is alleged by the petitioner/complainant (wife) that she was subjected to mental as well as physical torture and she was harassed and ill treated with cruelty by her husband and she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband. However, the allegations of domestic violence have been denied by the respondent.
Solemnization of marriage between the appellant Rita Saklani and respondent Raj Kumar Saklani is not disputed. It is also not disputed that out of the said wedlock, their son namely Ashutosh was born on 04/07/1996. It is also not disputed that son of the parties namely Ashutosh is residing with the respondent Raj Kumar Saklani. It is also not disputed that all the expenses of Ashutosh were/ are being borne by the respondent Raj Kumar Saklani. It is also not disputed that the appellant Rita Saklani and respondent Raj Kumar Saklani were in domestic relationship. It is also not disputed that the appellant Rita Saklani and respondent Raj Kumar Saklani were resided in the matrimonial Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:26:52 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.18 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
home after their marriage. It is also not disputed that marriage of the appellant and respondent was dissolved vide judgment dated 15/12/2009 passed in HMA No. 136/2006.
10. In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, petitioner/complainant has prayed monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-, maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-, compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, return of jewellery/stridhan articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- of the petitioner/complainant and she has also prayed to restrain the respondent from committing the violence against her.
It is the contention of the appellant Rita Saklani that respondent Raj Kumar Saklani was employed in Oriental Bank of Commerce and after retirement, he is getting handsome amount in pension.
In the present appeal, in terms of order dated 17/07/2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, appellant had filed the certified copy of her affidavit of income and expenditure dated 14/09/2023 and respondent had also filed certified copy of his affidavit of income and expenditure dated 20/09/2023.
In her aforesaid affidavit of income and expenditure, it is mentioned by the appellant that she had received an amount of Rs.13 Lakh from the School and she is receiving pension of Rs.1,499/- per month and total income of the appellant from various sources is about Rs.22,000/- per month. It is also mentioned in her affidavit that in May, 1995, the appellant had purchased a DDA Flat with her father's contribution and she is living in the said flat till today.
Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06
17:26:58
+0530
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.19 of 25
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
Appellant in her petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act has mentioned that she is highly qualified and she is M.Phil, B.Ed and was working as a Post- Graduate Teacher in a school. Appellant in the present appeal has mentioned that maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month had been awarded in the proceedings u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. and interim maintenance amount of Rs.4,500/- per month had been awarded in petition u/s. 24 HMA. In the present appeal, copy of order dated 09/12/2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAT. APP. 31/2010 & CM Appl. 19848/2018 had been filed, wherein respondent herein was directed to pay a monthly sum of Rs.7,000/- to the appellant towards maintenance.
From the aforesaid affidavit of the appellant, it is clear that she is having monthly income of Rs.22,000/- and she is also getting Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance and appellant is also having a DDA flat in her name.
On the other hand, respondent in his affidavit of income and expenditure has mentioned that he was retired from the services of the bank on 31/05/2021 and he is getting monthly pension of Rs.41,186/- and the aforesaid flat was purchased by him in the name of the appellant. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that his son is residing with him since beginning and till date, he is not settled.
11. In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent. It is admitted by the appellant in her aforesaid affidavit of income Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:27:03 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.20 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
and expenditure that in May, 1995, she had purchased a DDA Flat with her father's contribution and she is living in the said flat till today. Appellant has failed to clarify that when she is having a DDA flat in her name and she is residing in the said flat, then as to why she is claiming monthly rent of Rs.5000/- from the respondent. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for monthly rent of Rs.5000/- from the respondent.
In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, it is stated that she lost her job due to mental torture and physical harassment by the respondent and she suffered an amount of Rs.10,13,351/- as loss of earning. Petitioner/complainant in her petition/complaint as well as in her evidence has failed to clarify as to how she assessed the amount of Rs.10,13,351/- as loss of her earning. Petitioner/complainant has failed to prove the fact that the respondent was responsible for loss of earning of Rs.10,13,351/-. It is admitted by the appellant in her aforesaid affidavit of income and expenditure that she had received an amount of Rs.13 Lakh from her employer i.e. school. Despite receiving the amount of Rs.13 Lakh, appellant has failed to clarify as to how she suffered loss of earning. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for the amount of Rs.10,13,351/- from the respondent.
In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed for litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- from the respondent. Petitioner/complainant in her petition/complaint as well as in her evidence has failed to clarify as to how she assessed the litigation expenses Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:27:09 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.21 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
of Rs.22,000/-. No documentary evidence in this regard has been proved on record by the petitioner/complainant. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- from the respondent.
In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month from the respondent for herself and her son. It is admitted fact that son of the petitioner/complainant and respondent was/is residing with the respondent since long and all the expenses of their son Ashutosh were/ are being borne by the respondent. Hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance for her son. It is admitted fact that the petitioner/complainant is receiving Rs.7,000/- as maintenance. In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month, however, she is getting Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for further maintenance from the respondent.
In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent. Petitioner/complainant in her petition/complaint as well as in her evidence has failed to clarify as to how she assessed the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. No documentary evidence in this regard has been proved on record by the petitioner/complainant. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06
17:27:15
+0530
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.22 of 25
Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
respondent.
In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed for return of her jewellery/stridhan articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent. Petitioner/complainant had not filed/proved on record list and bills of jewellery/stridhan articles to show that the said jewellery/stridhan articles were belonging to the petitioner/complainant. Petitioner/complainant has failed to prove the fact before the Ld. Trial Court that jewellery/stridhan articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- were lying with the respondent. No documentary evidence in this regard has been proved on record by the petitioner/complainant. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for return of her jewellery/stridhan articles from the respondent.
In the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant, she has prayed to restrain the respondent from committing violence against her. It is admitted fact that the petitioner/complainant Rita Saklani and respondent Raj Kumar Saklani are living separately since 23/09/2002. It is also not disputed that marriage of the appellant and respondent was dissolved vide judgment dated 15/12/2009 passed in HMA No. 136/2006. Since, appellant and respondent are residing separately and their marriage has already been dissolved, there is no requirement to pass restrainment order. In view of the same, appellant/petitioner/complainant is not entitled for any restrainment order.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the appellant is Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2025.12.06 17:27:21 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.23 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
having monthly income of Rs.22,000/- and she is also getting Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance and she is also having a DDA flat in her name. Appellant in her cross-examination had admitted that she has no other liability except to maintain herself. The aforesaid total amount of Rs.29,000/- per month is sufficient for the appellant to maintain herself properly.
13. Vide impugned judgment dated 13/07/2016 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.
It is well settled law that the Appellate Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court and the Appellate Court will interfere only, if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Court has ignored settled principles of law.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of maintenance and other reliefs. All the points and contentions of both the parties were duly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment. Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition/complaint u/s. 12, 19, 20 & 22 D.V. Act of the petitioner/complainant. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06 17:27:26 +0530 CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.24 of 25 Rita Saklani Vs. Raj Kumar Saklani & Ors.
14. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present appeal u/s. 29 D.V. Act of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.12.06
Announced in the open Court 17:27:32
+0530
on 06/12/2025
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA No. 54560/2016 Page No.25 of 25