Delhi District Court
Sh. Nand Kishor vs Smt. Maya on 28 January, 2020
In the Court of Sh. Sudesh KumarII, Additional Sessions Judge02,
South District, Saket, New Delhi.
Criminal Appeal No.119/19
CNR No.DLST010019532019
In the matter of:
Sh. Nand Kishor
S/o Sh. Chander Pal
R/o: Khasra No. 23/23/1, Gali No. Ph1,
Surender Colony Village,
Jharoda Majra Ph1,
City Delhi. .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Maya
W/o Sh. Nand Kishor
D/o Sh. Raj Pal,
R/o: House No. 2/91,
Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi. .... Respondent
Date of assignment : 25.03.2019
Reserved for judgment : 21.01.2020
Date of decision : 28.01.2020
U/s: 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
JUDGMENT
1 By way of present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court02), Saket Courts, New Delhi, wherein a sum of Rs.7,000/ per month has been granted to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance.
Criminal Appeal No. 119/19 Nand Kishor Vs. Maya Page 1 of 62. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent, who is wife of the appellant, has filed a complaint under section 12 of the D.V. Act against the appellant and his family members levelling allegations of domestic violence and harassment for dowry. In her petition, she has shown the income of the appellant as Rs.673/ per day alleging that he is working in DTC, however, the appellant is working on contract basis in the DTC, arranged by "Directorate General of Home Guards and Civil Defence, Government of the NCT of Delhi". It is contended that the appellant is not a permanent employee with DTC. It is stated that on these basis, the respondent has claimed a maintenance of Rs.14,000/ per month from the appellant.
3. It is submitted on the behalf of the appellant that the Delhi Transport Authority gave duty to appellant as per requirement and in last months he was given only work for 2324 days. He has been paid the salary on the basis of working days which was given by the Delhi Transport Authority in his bank account. Copy of the bank statement is also annexed.
4. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not committed any domestic violence against the respondent wife, as the appellant has always treated her with love and affection.
5. It is contended that the Ld. MM has wrongly considered the contentions made on behalf of the appellant, and the Ld. MM has failed to take into consideration that his income was Rs.18,000/ per month from his contract job in Civil Defence. The appellant's salary is based on Criminal Appeal No. 119/19 Nand Kishor Vs. Maya Page 2 of 6 daily wages and he has no other source of income, however, the Ld. MM has wrongly considered the income of the appellant as Rs.30,000/per month and awarded Rs.7,000/ as maintenance to the respondent.
6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent has filed his written reply contending that the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant herein is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed by suppressing material facts. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent was continuously harassed by the appellant and his family members from the very beginning of the marriage. That previously she was thrown out of the house by the appellant and she came back only after a written apology was signed by the appellant in the presence of the neighbours and relatives.
7. It is further submitted by the counsel that in his income affidavit submitted by the appellant, it is clearly stated that his designation is "Driver", whereas in the present appeal, it has been mentioned that he is working as security man in DTC bus on contract basis at Rs.673/ per day. It is further submitted that as per the affidavit, the income has been shown less and his expenses are shown to be more.
8. It is submitted by the counsel that the Ld. MM has rightly considered the salary of the appellant as Rs.30,000/ as it has been passed after considering all the relevant facts and there was nothing wrong in the said order.
Criminal Appeal No. 119/19 Nand Kishor Vs. Maya Page 3 of 69. I have gone through the Trial Court record. The Ld. MM has passed the interim maintenance order observing as under:
"In the income affidavit of the aggrieved, it is deposed that she has studied till class VI and has no monthly income. The monthly expenditure of the aggrieved is Rs.14,000/ including Rs.5,000/ for groceries/food items/personal care/clothing; Rs.500/ for telephone/ mobile; Rs.1,000/ for bus/metro; Rs.2,000/ for doctor's charges, Rs.1,000/ for medication, Rs.3,000/ for other medical expenses; RS. 1,000/ per hearing for legal/litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/ for other expenditure. The aggrieved has no children out of this wedlock.
The aggrieved has no immovable property in her name and movable assets include one pair of silver pazeb worth Rs.2,000/. The monthly withdrawal of the aggrieved is Rs.15,000/. The aggrieved is residing at Block 2, House No.91, Dkashinpuri, New Delhi110062 being her parental home. The income of her parents/family members is not disclosed by her. There are no dependents of the aggrieved.
In the income affidavit of the respondent, it is deposed that he is Graduate and is working as a driver in DTC @ Rs.673/ per day. His monthly expenditure is Rs.28,219/ including Rs.2,000/ for monthly rent/mortgage payment(s)/repairs and maintenance/ property tax; Rs.3,000/ for groceries/food items/ personal care/ clothing;Criminal Appeal No. 119/19 Nand Kishor Vs. Maya Page 4 of 6
Rs.100/ for water; Rs. 500/ for electricity; Rs. 450/ for telephone/mobile; Rs.500/ for TV cable/settop box charges and internet services; Rs.500/ for maintenance, replacement and repair of household items, appliances and kitchenware; Rs.3,000/ for fuel, Rs.800/ for repair/maintenance of vehicle; Rs.300/ for medication; Rs.500/ fr other medical expenditure; Rs.10,000/ for legal/litigation expenses; EMI of bike Rs.3,228/ and EMI of phone of Rs.2,141/ towards repayment of loans, Rs.500/ for expenses incurred on festivals; Rs.200/ for newspapers/magazine/ books and Rs.1,000/ for pocket money/allowance. The respondent has no children out of this wedlock."
10. It was further observed by the Ld. MM as under :
"The monthly income of the respondent would not be less than Rs.30,000/ as his monthly expenditure is around Rs.28,000/. Further, it appears that the respondent has not filed his salary slips to avoid disclosing his gross monthly income. NO medical documents filed to show the expenses incurred by the respondent for the treatment of his hand".
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my considered view after observing the salary of the appellant to be Criminal Appeal No. 119/19 Nand Kishor Vs. Maya Page 5 of 6 Rs.30,000/, the Ld. MM has passed the interim maintenance order of Rs.7,000/ per month in favour of the respondent herein which is not at all in higher side. Even if, the contention of the respondent is accepted as such that his salary was Rs.18,000/ per month, a maintenance of Rs.7,000/ per month to the wife is not on a higher side. Even, as per the Minimum Wages Act, the salary for a skilled workman is prescribed as Rs.16,962/. He himself has shown his expenses to the tune of Rs.28,000/ per month.
12. Even otherwise, the appellant has failed to produce his salary slips alongwith his income affidavit therein making an effort to conceal his real income. He has failed to produce any document for treatment of his hand. The appellant has no other dependents.
13. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, and accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed.
14. The Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned Court/Record Room, alongwith a copy of this judgment.
15. The Appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (SUDESH KUMARII)
on 28th Day of January, 2020 ASJ02 (South)
Saket / New Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 119/19
Nand Kishor Vs. Maya Page 6 of 6