Delhi District Court
Shrawan Lal Jangid vs Prem Lata on 7 February, 2026
I N THE COURT OF MR. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC- 01), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CA No: 247/2025
CNR No.: DLST01-010302-2025
Police Station: Tigri
u/Section: 29, 23, PWDV Act, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRAWAN LAL JANGID ... Appellant
Through- M r. Siddharth Dias, Advocate
for the Appellant.
v.
PREM LATA Respondent
...
Through- Ms. Mahima Aggarwal,
Advocate for the Respondent.
Date of filing of appeal: 12.07.2025
Date of reserving judgment: 21.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 07.02.2026
A No. 247/2025
C
Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata
Page No.1/1 3
J U D G M E N T
07.02.2026
1) Sharawan Lal Jangid (appellant) has preferred anappealunder
Section 29 of the ProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct, 2005 (DV Act), challenging an order dated 20.05.2025 (impugned order)passedbytheCourtofLearnedJudicialMagistrate,FirstClass (Mahila Court)-02,SouthDistrict,SaketCourtsComplex,NewDelhi (Trial Court) in a complaint case titled as Prem Lata v. Shrawan Lal Jangid - CT Case No.155/2023, filed by Prem Lata (respondent). 2) The appellant is aggrieved bytheimpugnedorder,whereinthe TrialCourthasallowedtherespondent'sapplicationunderSection23, DV Act, and has directed the appellant, to pay a sum of ₹6,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent from thedateofthe filing of the complaint case until its disposal by the Trial Court. 3) The appellant herein isthenon-applicant/respondentNo.1and the respondent herein is the applicant/complainant before the Trial Court. For the sake of clarity, convenience and avoidance of any confusion, the parties are hereinafter referred interchangeably as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 4) The complainant invoked the jurisdiction of theTrialCourtby preferring an application under Section 12 of theDVActagainstthe non-applicants/respondents, herhusband-ShrawanLalJangid,son- Rakesh and daughter-in-law - Soni. A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.2/1 3 5) The facts of the case as discerned from the application moved by the complainant before the Trial Court are that Prem Lata (complainant)andShrawanLalJangid(respondentNo.1)arehusband and wife, who got married around three and half decades ago as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. 6) From the loins of the respondent and the womb of the complainant, they sired three children, a son Rakesh, and two daughters, Sita and Asha. All thethreechildrenarefullgrownadults and married. 7) Rakesh (respondent No. 2) is married to Soni (respondent No. 3) and lives with the complainant. Sita is married and lives with her husband at Sangam Vihar. Whereas, the daughter Asha, who is mentally abnormal is married to a mentally abnormal man and they live together with the complainant at House No. A-282B, Mangal Bazaar Road, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062. 8) The complainant and the respondents reside at the shared household i.e., House No. A-282B, Mangal Bazaar Road, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi - 110062. 9) The Respondent No. 1 husband allegedly subjected the complainant to cruelty, demanded money from her parents, beat-up and abused her, and sold her jewellery without her knowledge. The complainant hasallegedthatherhusband,respondentNo.1ishaving an affair with anotherwomanandsharescomplainant'privatephotos with his paramour. A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.3/1 3 10) Thesharedhouseholdtheyliveinwaspurchasedbyrespondent No. 1 with a large amount of money given by the complainant' parents, which was never returned to them byrespondentNo.1.The complainant has alleged in her complaint that she was beaten and thrown out of the house on several occasions, including June 2014, November 2014, 01.07.2022, and 08.08.2022. 11) The complainant has also levelled allegations against her son anddaughter-in-lawthatalltherespondentshaveallegedlybeatenthe complainant and verbally abused her. 12) Aspertheavermentsinthecomplaint,acompromisewasmade on04.09.2022topayRs.8,000/-permonthasmaintenance,however therespondentNo.1nevercompliedwiththetermsandconditionsof thecompromise.ThecomplainanthasallegedthattherespondentNos. 1 and 2 have sold all of the complainant' stridhan jewelries. 13) The complainant has also averred in her complaint that the respondent No. 1 is a builder, who has a monthly income of about ₹50,000 and also has earnings from rental income, interest income from loans. The respondent No. 2 son is an interior designer having monthly income of about ₹40,000/- per and also has earnings from rental income, interest income from loans. On the other hand, the complainant has no source of income and istotallydependentonthe respondents. 14) On being aggrieved by the respondents, the complainant on 25.01.2023 preferred the complainant under Section 12, DV Act A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.4/1 3 before the Trial Court. The complainant in her complaint before the Trial Court has sought the following reliefs against the respondents: "P rayer (i) assadirectioninthenatureofprohibitioninfavourofthe P complainant and against the respondents thereby prohibiting the respondents, their servants, attorneys etc. form committing any act of domestic violence and aiding orabettinginthecommissionofactsofdomesticviolence and punish the respondents for committing the offence of domestic violence. (ii) estrain the respondents, their agents, servants, attorneys, R etc.frommakinganykindofcommunicationi.e.,personal, oral, written or electronic or telephonic contract orinany other mode whatsoeverfromthecomplainant,herparents, and other family members of the complainant. (iii) irect the respondent number 1 to pay a sum of ₹30,000 D per month regularly to the complainant on account of maintenance/monetary relief. (iv) irecttherespondenttopayasumof₹10lakhsonaccount D ofmentaltorture,pain,agony,suffering,emotionaldistress, caused by the acts of domesticviolencecommittedbythe respondents." 15) The complainant along with an application under Section 12, DV Act, also preferred an application under Section 23, DV Act seeking interim relief against the respondents in the nature of prohibitiontocommitactsofdomesticviolence,directtherespondent (sic) to provide rented accommodation to the complainant and the expenses of the same is borne by the respondent, restrain the respondents, their agents, servant, attorneys, et cetera, from making anykindofcommunication,i.e.,personal,oral,writtenorelectronicor telephonic contract (sic), in any other mode whatsoever from the applicant, her parents, and other family members of the applicant, A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.5/1 3 direct the respondent (sic) to pay a sum of ₹30,000 per month regularly to the applicant on accountofmaintenance/monetaryrelief, and direct the respondent (sic) topayasumof₹10lakhsonaccount ofmentaltorture,pain,agony,suffering,emotionaldistress,causedby the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents. 16) TheTrialCourtbyimpugnedorderdirectedtherespondentNo. 1 to pay a sum of ₹6,000 per month as interim maintenance to the complainant on or before 10th day of English calendar month. The Trial Court while disposing of the complainant's application under Section 23, DV Act also held that no other relief other than interim maintenance as granted is made out in favour of the complainant. 17) On beingaggrievedbytheimpugnedorder,therespondentNo. 1 preferred the captionedappeal.Thegroundsofappealurgedbythe respondent No. 1 in his appeal center on the argument that the Trial Court erroneouslyawardedinterimmaintenanceof₹6,000permonth despite a pre-existing, voluntary settlement agreement between the parties. 18) TherespondentNo.1husbandintheappealhascontendedthat the complainant had already accepted ₹3,30,000 as a full and final settlement, leading her to withdraw a related civil suit and state on oath that no further issues remain between them. Furthermore, the respondent No. 1 has alleged that the complainant is not financially dependent, as she purportedly owns rental property in Tigri Extension--purchasedbydivertingtherespondentNo.1'ssavingsand she also earns a monthly rental income of over ₹5,000. The A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.6/1 3 respondent No. 1 husband has urged as a groundthattheTrialCourt failed to consider the independent incomeandallegedsuppressionof material facts by the complainant. 19) Additionally, the respondent No. 1 husband has laid challenge to the Trial Court's assessment of his income at ₹20,000 per month, and the same being arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. He emphasised that his current jobless status, burden of maintaining a 93-year-old mother,ahandicappedsibling,andamentallychallenged daughter, alongside significant debts incurred for his son's wedding were not considered by the Trial Court while deciding the motion under Section 23, DV Act. 20) The respondent No.1hasalsolodgedproceduralgrievancesas a ground in his appeal, particularly that his right to file a reply and incomeaffidavitwasunfairlyclosedinhisabsence,andthattheTrial Court passed the impugned order without fully appreciating the mutualsettlementarrivedbetweentheparties.Therespondenthasalso urgedthattheallegationsofdomesticviolencebyhiswifeagainsthim is amala fideabuse of the legal process aimed atunjust enrichment. Arguments by learned counsel for the parties 21) Mr. Siddharth Dias, learnedcounselfortheappellantadvanced arguments in tandem with the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order deservestobesetasidesolelyonthegroundthattheTrialCourtfailed to appreciate and consider that the partieson01.02.2024hadentered A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.7/1 3 into a settlement agreement before the Court of justice inacivilsuit titled as Prem Lata and Anr v. Shrawan Lal Jangid - CS SCJ No. 164/2023. The learned counsel further submitted that the parties not onlyrecordedtheirstatementaboutthe factum ofsettlementbutalso acted upon the same. 22) ThelearnedcounselfortheappellantarguedthattheTrialCourt failedtoappreciatethattheappellanthereinhasalreadypaidasumof ₹3,30,000/- as per the mutual settlement between the parties andyet the Trial Court proceeded to award monthly interim maintenance or ₹6,000/- to the respondent. The learned counsel further urged that grave travestyofjusticewouldbecausedastheappellanthasalready paid money above and beyond the computation of interim maintenance at the rate of ₹6,000 per month. 23) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the monthlyinterimmaintenanceawardedbytheTrialCourtisseemingly distant from the reality, as the Trial Court has proceededonawrong premise of considering the monthly income of the appellant as ₹20,000/-. The learned counsel further submittedthattheTrialCourt failed to give due weightage and consideration to other familial obligations, financial responsibilities of the appellant. 24) Mr. Siddharth Dias, learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court may be set asideasnocaseforgrantofinterimmaintenanceismadeoutinfavour of the respondent. A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.8/1 3 25) Per contra, Ms. Mahima Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent vociferously contended the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is the lawfully wedded wife of the appellant.Thelearnedcounselurgedthatitistheboundendutyofthe husband to maintain his wife and to ensure that the wife (read as respondent) is not pushed to vagary. 26) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant is trying to hide behind the veil of a settlementagreement, whereas that very agreement is untenable as the respondent was misled and coerced by the appellant to sign the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant cannot be permitted to take benefit of a non est settlement agreement and cite the same to deprive maintaining his lawful wedded wife. 27) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any perversity as the same is a reasonable, just, fair order and the same ought to be upheld by this Court. 28) Ms. Mahima Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent concludedtheargumentsonthenotethatthepresentappealisnothing but an utter abuse of process of lawandthesamehasbeenpreferred with a motive todelayanddeprivetherespondentofherlawfulright of maintenance by her appellant, husband. A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.9/1 3 29) On careful perusal, examination oftheappealpaper-book,trial court record (TCR) and consideration of the weighty arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the primordial question before this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is just, reasonable and deserves to be set aside under exercise of appellate power of this Court? 30) For answering the above question, it is relevant that a few timelines are culled out. 31) The admitted position is that the appellant and respondent are husband andwife.Bothofthemhaveadmittedaboutthefilingofthe civilsuittitledas PremLataandAnrv.ShrawanLalJangid-CSSCJ No. 164/2023 and the complaint case titled as PremLatav.Shrawan Lal Jangid & Ors- CT Case No.155/2023 from which arises the present appeal. Itisalsoadmittedbythepartiesthattheyhadentered into a settlement agreement. 32) Now assuming for the sake of arguments that the settlement agreement entered between the partieswasillegalandtherespondent was misled by the appellant, who also coerced her to sign the settlement.ThesettlementwasenteredbeforetheCourtoflawandthe parties not only recorded their statements on 01.02.2024 about the settlement but also the said civil suit titled as Prem Lata and Anr v. ShrawanLalJangid-CSSCJNo.164/2023asperthesettlementwas disposed of as settled (read as compromise). A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.10/1 3 33) This Court finds that despite the allegations by the respondent that she was forced, coerced by the respondent to enter into a compromise,settlement,therespondentherein,tilldatehasnotsought any recourse in law, as available to her to seek setting aside of the settlement/compromise by moving an appropriate petition before the concerned Court in accordance with law. 34) This Court on perusal of the impugned order and on close scrutinyoftheTCRfindsthattheverysettlementdated25.01.2024is not a part of the judicial record of the Trial Court. The copy of the certified copy ofthesettlementdeeddated25.01.2024alongwiththe statements dated 01.02.2024 of the respondent and the appellant hereininthecivilsuit- CSSCJ164/2023titledasPremLataandAnr v. Shrawan Lal Jangid have been filedalongwiththepresentappeal, howevernosuchdocumentswereplacedbeforetheTrialCourt.Thus, it would not be trite for the parties, to suggest and contend that the Trial Court did not consider and weigh the settlement deed dated 25.01.2024 and their respective statements dated 01.02.2024. 35) On careful perusal of the appeal paper-bookandthetrialcourt record, it is found that the complaint before the Trial Court titled as PremLatav.ShrawanLalJangid-CTCaseNo.155/2023wasfiledon 28.01.2023 and the civil suit titled as PremLataandAnrv.Shrawan Lal Jangid - CS SCJ No. 164/2023 was filed on 02.03.2023. It is furtherobservedthatthesettlementdeeddated25.01.2024wassigned between the parties and their statements were recorded before the concerned Court on 01.02.2024. In short, both the casesbetweenthe A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.11/1 3 parties were pending at the time of them having entered into the settlement/compromise agreement dated 25.01.2024. 36) This Court finds that it was the bounden duty of both the parties, to file and place the settlementdeeddated25.01.2024before the Trial Court, so that the Trial Court while deciding the motion under Section 23, DV Act ought to have the benefitofthesameand consider it in accordance with law. 37) With the above findings and observations,thisCourtfindsand rules thattheimpugnedorderdated20.05.2025mustbesetasideand thepartiesberelegatedbeforetheTrialCourtwithdirectiontofilethe certified copy of the settlement deed dated 25.01.2024 along with statements dated 01.02.2024 of the parties and the order dated 01.02.2024passedbytheCourtofASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum-GJ(South), SaketCourts,NewDelhiinacivilsuittitledas PremLataandAnrv. Shrawan Lal Jangid. Consequentially, the Trial Court is directed to decidethecomplainant/respondent'sapplicationunderSection23,DV Actseekinginterimmaintenancefromtherespondent/appellantafresh in accordance with law. 38) DuringthependencyofthepresentappealbeforethisCourt,the appellant videorderdated13.10.2025wasdirectedtodepositasumof ₹1,00,000/- by way of a fixed deposit receipt (FDR). The appellant deposited the aforesaid amount vide order dated 21.01.2026 and the FDR was taken on record with necessary endorsement. The Court deems fit to transmittheaforesaidFDRtotheTrialCourtanddecide A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.12/1 3 the release of the same in favour of the either party at the time of deciding the application under Section 23, DV Act. 39) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the criminal appealtitledas Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Prem Lata - CA No. 247/2025 preferred by the appellant/respondent husband, Shrawan Lal Jangid against the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Trial Court stands allowed in above terms. 40) Anyobservationmadehere-in-aboveforthepurposeofdealing with the contentions raised during the hearing of the present appeal shall not be deemed to be an expression on the merits of the case. 41) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 13.02.2026. Let the TCR along with the certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court for compliance and necessary action, if any, as per rules. File be consignedtotherecord room only after due compliance, necessary action as per applicable rules. Digitally signed by Hargurvarinder Hargurvarinder Singh jaggi Singh jaggi Date: 2026.02.07 15:20:30 +0530 ronounced in the open Court P ( Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) on February 07, 2026 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-01) South District Saket Courts, New Delhi EB ote: This judgment comprises of 13pagesintotal.Theelectronicsignaturecertificate N (digital signature) of the Presiding Officer has been appended on the last page of the electronic or digital copy (PDF) of this document. A No. 247/2025 C Shrawan Lal Jangid v. Smt. Prem Lata Page No.13/1 3