Delhi District Court
Amar vs Smt. Sushma on 6 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA,
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE02 (EAST)/SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 298/16
Amar
S/ Sh Cheddi Lal
R/o 25/30, Trilokpuri
Delhi
............ Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Sushma
W/o Sh Amar
R/o 25/30 Trilokpuri
Delhi
2. The State
(Through NCT of Delhi)
........... Respondents
Date of Institution: 27.09.2016
Reserved for Order on : 03.02.2017
Judgment pronounced on: 06.02.2017.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal u/s 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act., against the impugned order dated 17.09.2016. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondents. Trial Court record has been requisitioned and perused. Arguments have been heard from the Ld. Counsels for the parties.
CA No.298/2016 Amar Vs. Sushma & Ors. Page no. 1 of 4
2. Appellant is the husband of respondent no.1.
Respondents no.1 alongwith her three minor children filed a complaint u/s 12 r/w Sec. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband(appellant herein) as well as relatives of her husband on the ground that she was subjected to domestic violence at her matrimonial home. Appellant appeared for the first time before the trial court on 17.09.16 after receiving the notice of the application. He was granted time to file the reply within four weeks. Ld. Trial Court after considering the submissions of respondent no.1 that she and her two daughters are not being given any maintenance, not even ration is being provided by appellant, passed an ad-interim order in favour of respondent no.1 thereby directing the appellant herein to make total payment of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents till disposal of the interim application. It is, this order which has been challenged in appeal before this court.
3. Ld.Counsel of appellant has argued that order is based on surmises and conjectures. Appellant has already been paying Rs.1500/- p.m as maintenance as per Mediation Order dated 28.11.2007. It is submitted that the appellant is working as housekeeper on contract and is earning Rs.7500/- p.m and having liability of his parents. It has also been submitted that appellant is paying tuition fee for two children amount to Rs.650/- p.m and other expenses and is also bearing the household expenses of respondents and therefore, ad-interim maintenance awarded @ Rs.5000/- is CA No.298/2016 Amar Vs. Sushma & Ors. Page no. 2 of 4 excessive and is liable to be set-aside.
4. Ld. Counsel of respondent has argued that the appellant is working with Delhi Metro as Supervisor at the salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m whereas respondent no.1 and her children have no source of income and appellant has not made any provision for their maintenance and has left them at the mercy of God. It is submitted that Rs.1500/- awarded in Mediation settlement is not enough for survival of respondent no.1 and her minor daughters.
5. Appellant has not filed any proof of his income. As per affidavit of respondent no.1 filed before the Trial Court, she is housewife while appellant is 10th pass and working as Supervisor in Delhi Metro and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. Relationship is not in dispute. Admittedly, appellant is husband of respondent no.1. It has not been disputed before this court that three children are born out from the wedlock. Being the husband of respondent no.1 and father of three minor daughters, appellant cannot escape his liability to maintain them. The objective of giving maintenance is to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The grant of ad-interim maintenance for the said purpose cannot be unjustified. At this stage, there is no proof of income of the appellant in as much as he is yet to file reply and his affidavit before the trial court. As per Minimum Wages Act., the minimum wages of a Matriculate person working as Supervisory Staff is Rs.11,154/- p.m . That being so, the grant of Rs.5,000/- as ad-interim maintenance cannot be regarded as unjustified. However, CA No.298/2016 Amar Vs. Sushma & Ors. Page no. 3 of 4 it is made clear that maintenance received by respondent no.1 under any other Law shall be adjusted out of Rs.5000/- awarded as ad- interim maintenance in the present case.
6. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is therefore, dismissed. For the purpose of clarification, it may be noted that nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
7. It is expected that Ld. Trial Court shall expedite disposal of interim application as early as possible. The payment made by appellant to respondent no.1 in compliance of order dated 17.09.2016 shall be adjusted towards maintenance, if any, awarded by the Ld. Trial Court while disposing the interim maintenance application.
8. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of this Judgment.
9. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
court on 06.02.2017 (RAVINDER DUDEJA)
Addl. Sessions Judge02(East)
Special Judge (NDPS)
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
CA No.298/2016 Amar Vs. Sushma & Ors. Page no. 4 of 4