Delhi District Court
Vaibhav Aggarwal vs Tanu Priya on 26 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 113/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-015792-2021
Vaibhav Aggarwal
S/o Late Vijay Kumar Aggarwal
R/o 53/4530, 3rd Floor, Regar Pura
Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005
..... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Tanu Priya
W/o Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal
2. Master Aarav Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Vaibhav Aggarwal
Both residents of:
2040/171, Ganesh Pura
Tri Nagar, New Delhi-110035
..... Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 136/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-017395-2021
Ms. Tanu Priya
..... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Vaibhav Aggarwal
2. Smt. Santosh Aggarwal
W/o Late Vijay Kumar Aggarwal
3. Smt. Nupur Bansal
W/o Sh. Pramod Bansal
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.11.2021 / 15.12.2021
Date of Arguments : 24.11.2022
Date of Judgment : 26.11.2022
JUDGMENT
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 1 of 19
1. The criminal appeals under Section 29 of 'The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005' (Hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act') are directed against order dated 18.10.2021 (In short 'the impugned order') in complaint case vide CC No. 15320/2017 titled as 'Ms. Tanu Priya vs. Vaibhav Aggarwal & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM (Mahila Court) 04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') directed the respondent / Vaibhav Aggarwal to pay interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 26,000/- per month each to the appellant / Tanu Priya and minor child from the date of filing of application under Section 12 DV Act till decision of the case. The trial Court awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards rent of alternative accommodation from the date of execution of rent agreement till her entitlement or disposal of the case. The trial Court has also awarded an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are impleaded in the complaint i.e. Tanu Priya as 'the complainant' and Vaibhav Aggarwal as 'the respondent'.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The complainant filed an application under Section 12 DV Act, inter alia, against the respondent and his family members for reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 DV Act alongwith an application under Section 23 DV Act for interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- per month.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 2 of 19
4. The marriage of the complainant with the respondent was solemnized on 16.05.2010. They were blessed with a male child, namely, Aarav Aggarwal on 10.02.2011. The complainant alleged that the respondent and his family members subjected her to domestic violence. The complainant made a complaint in this regard on 26.07.2017. The complainant alongwith the minor child is residing with her parents since 01.07.2017.
5. The case of the complainant is that the respondent has not made any provision for maintenance. The complainant and the minor child are dependent upon her aged parents. The complainant has no source of income. She has no movable or immovable property. The respondent has income more than Rs. 6,00,000/- per month. The respondent did law from Delhi University in 2008. The respondent is an experienced corporate lawyer. He is running a corporate law firm 'Vaibhav Aggarwal & Associates'. The respondent is practicing in District Courts, High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court of India and various Tribunals. The respondent is representing big companies Mytrah N4-Electric Pvt. Ltd., Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd. and Talettutayi Solar Projects One Pvt. Ltd. In may, 2011, the respondent joined 'PRA Law Office' and thereafter, 'Khaitan Sud and Partners'. The respondent joined 'Suri and Company' in 2016 and thereafter, 'Desai and Diwanji Firm'. The respondent worked in 'MBS Counsels and Advocates' till January, 2017.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 3 of 19
6. According to the complainant, the respondent was receiving an amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- from 'Desai and Diwanji Firm' as salary. The respondent is earning Rs. 4,50,000/- from legal practice and Rs. 50,000/- from consultation. The respondent is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from shares, debentures and mutual funds. The respondent invested in Tata Mutual Funds and Axis Mutual Funds. The respondent has total income of Rs. 6,00,000/- from his various sources. The respondent has two bank accounts in his name in 'HDFC Bank' and 'Bank of India' in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondent has two joint bank accounts in 'HDFC Bank' and 'Bank of India', Karol Bagh, Delhi. The respondent is living a luxurious life. He has several FDRs. The respondent is joint owner of Property No. 4530/53, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi and 2764/22, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The respondent purchased a flat at Vardhman, Sector-96, Manesar, Haryana. The complainant is incurring all expenses of education of the minor child. The respondent is neither maintaining nor providing maintenance to the complainant and the minor child.
7. In reply, the respondent contended that the complainant voluntarily deserted him. He denied allegations pertaining to commission of domestic violence. He contended that he had taken the complainant to out station tours at various tourist locations since 2010 to May, 2017. He contended that he admitted the minor child in a reputed school i.e. Salwan Public School, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 4 of 19
8. In his reply, the respondent further contended that the complainant was averse to stay of his sister, namely, Nupur Bansal in matrimonial house. He contended that in-laws of his sister administered toxic substance to his sister and caused serious injuries to her. He contended that the complainant obtained transfer certificate (TC) and admitted the minor child in Kulachi Hansraj Public School, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He contended that his father was a cancer patient and he underwent two major surgeries in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Rajeev Gandhi Cancer Hospital in December, 2017.
9. The case of the respondent is that he is dealing corporate matters. He was providing his services to firms on retainership basis. His income was Rs. 75,000/- per month with which he is maintaining his parents and sister also. He contended that he was bearing expenses of treatment of his father who was a cancer patient. He contended that he booked a flat in housing project in Gurgaon, Haryana. He was paying fees in the sum of Rs. 10,500/- per month to Salwan Public School, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. He contended that he invested in mutual funds as part of 'tax savings'. He denied that his income is Rs. 6,00,000/- per month. He contended that the complainant has several bank accounts and FDRs. He contended that the complainant has sufficient income to maintain herself and the minor child. He contended that the complainant is B.Com Pass and providing professional services to several Chartered Accountants (CA).
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 5 of 19 IMPUGNED ORDER:
10. The relevant part of the impugned order is as under:
"15. Though, the complainant had mentioned that the income of the respondent No. 1 is Rs. 6 lakhs per month however, there is nothing on record to show the income of respondent No. 1 as Rs. 6 lakhs per month, as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, considering the said income and considering the fact that the respondent No. 1 has also been maintaining his mother, as according to the own submission of the complainant, the father of respondent No. 1 had died and the sister of the respondent No. 1 was also residing with the respondent No. 1 and there is no document to show any separate income of the sister of the respondent No. 1 therefore, the said income of Rs. 1,58,662/- is divided into six parts.16. Hence, it is ordered that respondent No. 1
shall pay a sum of Rs. 26,000/- each per month to the complainant as well as to the minor child from the date of filing of present petition till the disposal of the present petition or till they are legally entitled to receive the same, whichever is earlier by the 7th of each calendar month. The respondent No. 1 is directed to clear the arrears of said maintenance within 06 months. The amount already paid be adjusted.
17. The complainant has further claimed the relief of rent for alternative accommodation @ Rs. 60,000/- per month however, she had failed to place on record any document to show that the rent of similarly situated property i.e. 60 Sq. Yard property at Regarpura was available at rent of Rs. 60,000/- as claimed. However, considering the fact that the complainant is not residing with the respondent No. 1 in shared household therefore, she is entitled for rent of alternative accommodation, which is being awarded @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, the complainant is entitled to receive the said rent only on producing a rent agreement i.e. from the date of execution of rent agreement till the entitlement of the complainant or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier."
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 6 of 19 CRIMINAL APPEALS:
11. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the complainant and the respondent preferred the criminal appeals.
APPEARANCE:
12. I have heard Mr. Ajay Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Pradeep Nawani, Advocate for the respondent and examined trial Court record and perused written arguments filed by the respondent.
CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the trial Court has not assessed actual income of the respondent. He contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, unjustified and untenable. He contended that the complainant is not only entitled to maintenance but to right to residence also, as per income and status of the respondent. He contended that the complainant has no source of income and she does not possess any movable or immovable asset. He contended that the complainant and the minor child are dependant upon her aged parents and brother. He contended that the respondent has income more than Rs. 6,00,000/- per month from various sources. He contended that the respondent is a corporate lawyer and he is running a corporate law firm. He contended that the respondent worked with eminent law firms. He contended that the respondent was receiving salary of Rs. 1,75,000/- and other allowances / perks of Rs. 1,25,000/- p.m. Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 7 of 19
14. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the respondent has income in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from legal practice and Rs. 1,00,000/- from consultation and Rs. 50,000/- from shares, debentures and mutual funds. He taken the Court through Income Tax Returns, statement of bank accounts of the respondent and his affidavit in support of his case. He contended that the complainant is entitled to maintenance in the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- per month and Rs. 60,000/- per month as rent for alternative accommodation. He contended that interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court is highly inadequate. He contended that the respondent is an experienced corporate lawyer having worked with eminent law firms since 2008. He contended that the complainant is a graduate. He contended that the complainant is entitled to same standard of living in which she was living with the respondent. He contended that the trial Court wrongly considered mother and sister of the respondent as his dependants and made deduction from his income. He contended that the respondent's sister is employed in Nestle Company and his mother is running jewellery shop after demise of his father on 26.04.2021. He contended that there is no evidence that the respondent was making payment of medical expenses pertaining to treatment of his father. He contended that the complainant and the minor child be awarded interim maintenance @ Rs. 2,20,000/- per month and Rs. 60,000/- per month as rent for alternative accommodation in lieu of right to residence.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 8 of 19 CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:
15. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court did not consider that the complainant is a qualified person and she is not entitled to interim maintenance. He contended that the trial Court did not consider that the complainant voluntarily left matrimonial house without any reasonable excuse and therefore, she is not entitled to seek rent for alternative accommodation. He contended that interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court @ Rs. 26,000/- per month each to the complainant and the minor child is on higher side. He contended that the respondent is regularly making payment of ad-interim maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. He contended that the trial Court wrongly assessed income of the respondent as Rs. 1,58,000/- without considering statutory deductions, EMIs and other liabilities. He contended that the trial Court assessed income of the respondent as Rs. 1,58,000/- per month on the basis of 'Income and Expenditure' affidavit filed on 13.08.2018. He contended that the trial Court did not consider latest 'Income and Expenditure' affidavit of the respondent filed on 13.01.2021. He contended that the trial Court did not consider current income of the respondent as on date of assessment of his income. He contended that the trial Court did not consider Income Tax Returns filed by the respondent. He contended that the respondent is unemployed since 11.05.2020 and he is bearing his personal expenses and of his dependants from his investments and savings.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 9 of 19
16. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that statement of bank accounts and credit cards would show that the respondent was bearing expenses pertaining to treatment of his father. He contended that the investments in mutual funds were meant for 'tax savings'. He contended that the trial Court has not passed the reasoned order pertaining to award of rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in lieu of alternate accommodation. He contended that the trial Court has not given any prima facie finding pertaining to commission of domestic violence. He contended that the respondent is paying EMI of Rs. 16,367/- per month towards Flat No. B-305, in Green Court, Sector-90, Gurgaon, Haryana. He contended that the said amount should have been deducted from income of the respondent. He contended that the impugned order should be set-aside. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
(a) Whether there is a prima facie case disclosing commission of domestic violence against the complainant?
17. The trial Court observed that there is a prima facie case of infliction of domestic violence, as under:
"7. In the present matter, marriage between both the parties is admitted. Even, sharing of domestic relationship in a shared household is admitted. As regards the allegations of domestic violence, the same has been denied by the respondent No. 1. However, at this preliminary stage, a mini trial cannot be conducted in respect of allegations of domestic violence.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 10 of 19 However, considering the fact that in the complaint of the complainant, as well as in the DIR filed by the protection officer, the complainant has alleged infliction of physical, emotional, mental and economic abuse and considering the fact that the complainant and respondent No. 1 are presently not residing together, prima facie, it appears that there was infliction of domestic violence upon the complainant therefore, she is an aggrieved person as per the meaning and definition of D.V. Act."
18. In application under Section 12 DV Act, the complainant alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for bringing a Honda City Car, refrigerator and Rs. 7,00,000/-. She alleged that the respondent and his family members taken her stridhan. She alleged that she was subjected to verbal abuse, physical abuse and economic abuse. Admittedly, the complainant filed a complaint with Crime Against Women, Nanakpura, New Delhi on 26.07.2017 which eventually culminated into registration of FIR 44/2018 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at PS CAW, Nanakpura, Delhi on 05.06.2018. Domestic Incident Report (DIR) mentioned incidents of domestic violence. Therefore, there is a prima facie case that the respondent and his family members subjected the complainant to domestic violence.
(b) Whether the complainant deserted the respondent without any reasonable excuse?
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that the complainant deserted the respondent without any reasonable excuse and she voluntarily left matrimonial house and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 11 of 19
20. In Nakul vs. Padmini, (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 10624, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held, as under:
"9. The contentions of the petitioner that the respondent wife has deserted him without any reasonable cause and therefore, she is disentitled to maintenance, cannot be considered in great details at the stage of determination of interim maintenance."
21. At this stage, the Court cannot consider the case of the parties minutely. Prima facie, there is sufficient material in the form of allegations made in the application under Section 12 DV Act, complaint dated 26.07.2017, FIR 44/2018 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC at PS CAW, Nanakpura, Delhi and Domestic Incident Report (DIR) that the complainant is not residing separately without any reasonable cause.
(c) Whether the complainant is not entitled to maintenance as she is holding a degree of B.Com Pass?
22. The complainant cannot be denied maintenance on the ground that she is qualified to obtain an employment. 'Capacity of earning' and 'actual earning' are two different concepts. This proposition of law is laid down in the case of Kanupriya Sharma vs. State & Anr., (2019) 261 DLT 349 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that 'actual earning' or 'qualified and capable of earning' are two different things. In Shailja & Anr. vs. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that whether the appellant is 'capable of earning' or whether she is 'actually earning' are two different things and merely because the appellant is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 12 of 19
(d) Whether the complainant is employed and has independent income?
23. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that the complainant is B.Com Pass and she is self employed and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. He contended that the complainant is imparting tuitions in accounts and teaches cooking at home. He contended that the complainant is also sitting in shop of her father and sharing profits of his business.
24. However, besides averments, there is no material on record to substantiate employment / avocation and income of the complainant. Mere statement that the complainant is self employed and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from tuition, teaching and shop of her father would not cut ice.
(e) Whether the trial Court rightly assessed income of the respondent and awarded just and reasonable interim maintenance?
25. The case of the complainant is that the respondent is earning about Rs. 4,50,000/- from his legal practice, Rs. 50,000/- from consultation, Rs. 50,000/- from investments made in shares, debentures and mutual funds and Rs. 50,000/- from investment made in gold and diamond business of his father. She is claiming an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- as interim maintenance and Rs. 60,000/- towards rent in lieu of right to residence.
26. The case of the complainant is that she is unemployed and she has no source of income and she is dependant upon her parents and brother for maintenance.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 13 of 19
27. The case of the respondent is that he was earning Rs. 75,000/- as consultancy fee and he is not employed since May, 2020. It is further case of the respondent that he has a dependant mother and sister. It is further case of the respondent that he is paying EMI in the sum of Rs. 16,367/- in respect of Flat No. B-305, in Green Court, Sector-90, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is further case of the respondent that income assessed by the trial Court on the basis of Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the period prior to COVID-19 are not relevant for assessment of his current income. It is further case of the respondent that he lost his job in May, 2020 and he is currently unemployed.
28. The respondent is husband of the complainant and father of the minor child. The complainant is not employed. She has no source of income. She has no movable or immovable property worth generating any regular income. She is dependant upon her parents for maintenance as well as education of the minor child. The respondent is legally and morally liable to maintain the complainant and the minor child.
29. The issue before the Court is whether the trial Court has rightly assessed income of the respondent.
30. The respondent is a corporate lawyer. He did his law in 2008 from Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University, Delhi. He has worked with eminent law firms of India. He has considerable experience in the field of corporate law.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 14 of 19
31. The respondent claimed his monthly income as Rs. 1,58,662.59/- as Senior Manager (Contracts) in Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. since February, 2018. He claimed his mother and sister as his dependants. He has shown his income from interest on bank deposits and FDRs as well as investments around Rs. 35,000/- per annum. In his current 'Income and Expenditure' affidavit, he claimed himself unemployed. The respondent cannot shirk his liability to maintain the complainant and the minor child on the ground that he is unemployed. A person having qualification and experience, as possessed by him, cannot avoid his liability on such ground.
32. The complainant has referred certain credit and debit entries in the statement of accounts of the respondent to contend that the respondent's income is Rs. 6,00,000/- per month. The nature and impact of the said entries on assessment of income can only be adjudged after the trial.
33. Therefore, the trial Court did not commit any error in considering previous Income Tax Returns of the respondent to assess his income as Rs. 1,58,662/- per month.
34. The trial Court did not commit any error in considering the mother and sister of the respondent as his dependants. The sister of the respondent is having marital dispute with her husband. She is residing with the respondent. Being a brother, the respondent has responsibility to maintain his sister in such difficult time of her marital life.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 15 of 19
35. The respondent cannot claim deduction of EMI's of Rs. 16,367/- towards housing loan as income disclosed in Income Tax Returns is not always real income.
36. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr, Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 decided on 04.11.2020, enumerated parameters for determining maintenance, as under:
"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 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.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded u/s 24 of the Act."
37. The complainant has not given head-wise break- up of her interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- per month. The complainant has not given any justification for claiming such interim maintenance.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 16 of 19
38. The complainant is entitled to interim maintenance commensurate to the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the complainant and the minor child and such amount should not be excessive and oppressive.
39. The trial Court has not committed any error in granting interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 26,000/- each to the complainant and the minor child.
40. The amount awarded by the trial Court can be justified, as under:
Head Amount Food including grocery, vegetables and milk Rs. 24,000/- per month etc., transport and communication expenses Clothing Rs. 10,000/- per month Academic expenses including transport Rs. 15,000/- per month Water, gas and electricity Rs. 3,000/- per month
41. The complainant alongwith the minor child is residing with her parents and brother. She has a right of residence in shared household. The complainant cannot be forced to stay in the house of her parents. She can claim rent of alternate accommodation in lieu of her right to residence in shared household.
42. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in granting Rs. 10,000/- as rent for alternate accommodation from the date of rent agreement.
43. Therefore, the interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 26,000/- each granted by the trial Court to the complainant and the minor child is just and reasonable. This amount would not be highly oppressive and arduous for the respondent.
Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 17 of 19 CONCLUSION:
44. This Court does not find any manifest jurisdictional error or patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which would occasion injustice, if it is not set-aside. Accordingly, the criminal appeals filed by the complainant and the respondent are dismissed. A copy of judgment alongwith trial Court record be sent back to trial Court.
45. The criminal appeal files be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2022.11.28 13:12:13 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II th on this 26 November, 2022 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 18 of 19 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. CNR No.: DLCT010157922021 Crl. Appeal No. 113/2021 26.11.2022 Present : Ms. Charu Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Malhotra, Advocate with the respondent No. 1.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The criminal appeal file be Digitally signed consigned to record room. by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2022.11.28 13:12:25 +0530 Sanjay SharmaII ASJ03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 26.11.2022 Crl. Appl. No. 113/2021 Vaibhav Aggarwal vs. Tanu Priya & Anr. Page No. 19 of 19