Delhi District Court
Jasvinder Kaur vs Manpreet Singh on 28 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. 104/2022
CNR No. DLNW01-007519-2022
Jasvinder Kaur
W/o Manpreet Singh
R/o A-87D, Lakhiram Park
Sector-28, Kirari Suleman Nagar
Rohini, New Delhi-110086
......... Appellant
Versus
Manpreet Singh
W/o Late Harpal Singh
R/o H. No. JG 2nd /776B, LIG Flats
Vikaspuri, New Delhi
Also at :
E-20, 2nd Floor, Sant Garh
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018
...... Respondent
Date of filing : 29.07.2022
Date of arguments : 14.09.2022
Date of Judgment : 28.09.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal against the order dt.10.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court-02), North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in a complaint case bearing CT No. 5761/2021 titled 'Smt. Jasvinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Manpreet Singh & Ors.', whereby, the Ld. MM directed the respondent No.1-therein/husband to pay Rs.2500/- pm as ad interim of the child to the petitioner-therein/appellant-herein from the date of filing of the said Crl. Appeal No. 104/2022 Jasvinder Kaur V. Manpreet Singh Page No. 1 of 5 petition/complaint case till disposal of the interim maintenance application.
2. The brief facts, as set out in the present appeal, are that marriage between the appellant-herein and respondent-herein was solemnized on 16.04.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs and one child namely Japraj was born from the said wedlock who is minor. The respondent-wife filed a complaint u/s 12 of the said Act seeking grant of relief (s) provided u/s 18, 20 & 22 of the said Act along with interim maintenance application u/s 23(2) of the said Act against the appellant- husband and his family members. In the said complaint case, the Ld. MM passed the impugned order dt. 10.05.2022. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds among others that the impugned order was passed without considering that the respondent/husband is a commercial driver who is a skilled worker and minimum wages of skill worker is fixed at the rate of Rs.20,019/- pm. However, the monthly income of the respondent/husband is more than Rs.30,000/- pm. Ld. MM has considered the wrong submissions of the respondent that he is a driver and his monthly income is Rs.8,000/- pm. The Ld. MM has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant/appellant is totally dependent on her old father who is running a small kirana shop and not a single penny was given by the respondent from the date the appellant/wife was thrown out from her matrimonial home while she was four months pregnant. The appellant- herein/complainant-therein filed the said case with her bona fide intention to maintain herself and her child. The appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned order dt. 10.05.2022 and to pass the order of ad interim maintenance as per the correct income and status of the respondent for Crl. Appeal No. 104/2022 Jasvinder Kaur V. Manpreet Singh Page No. 2 of 5 both appellant and her child.
3. The respondent has not filed reply to the appeal. However, it has been opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel for the respondent and I have also gone through the impugned order, written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and also the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as materials available on record.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the ad interim maintenance amount of Rs.2500/- pm is a meager amount for the appellant/wife and her minor child. The respondent/husband is a cab driver and earning more than Rs.30,000/- pm. The respondent/husband being a commercial driver falls in the category of skilled worker and minimum wages of skill worker for whom the minimum wages is fixed at the rate of Rs.20,019/- pm. Ld. MM passed the impugned order dt.10.05.2022 on the wrong submissions of the respondent/husband that he is earning only Rs.8,000/- pm. The complainant/appellant is totally dependent on her old father. The respondent/husband is liable to maintain his wife/appellant and his minor child as per his income and status. The ad interim amount of Rs.2500/- pm is not sufficient amount for the appellant and her minor child considering the inflation, day to day expenses and living style in Delhi. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and Ors. AIR 2016 SC 1855 and Minu Rout and Ors. V. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors (2013) 10 SCC 695.
Crl. Appeal No. 104/2022 Jasvinder Kaur V. Manpreet Singh Page No. 3 of 5
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent/husband is working as a driver and earning Rs.8000/- pm. The appellant has not filed any document to show the alleged income of the respondent. The appellant/wife is Post Graduate and earning Rs.20,000/- by working in beauty parlour and giving tuitions. She is also staying with her previous husband. It was the ad interim maintenance order and interim maintenance application is yet to be decided by the Ld. MM. The Ld. MM after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the ad interim maintenance amount of Rs.2500/- pm to the child of the complainant. The case is at the initial stage. The interim maintenance/ maintenance amount for the wife/appellant is to be decided after hearing the arguments on the said application.
7. Perusal of record reveals that the said complaint case/petition was instituted before the Ld. Trial Court on 05.07.2021 and proceedings of the case were conducted through virtual hearings before the Ld. MM. The appellant/husband has stated in his reply to the complaint case u/s 12 of the said Act that he is a driver and earning around Rs.10,000/- pm. He also stated that complainant/wife is skillful lady and earning handsomely. In his detailed income affidavit, the appellant/husband has mentioned the educational qualification of the complainant/wife as Master in Arts (M.A.) and stated that she is a Beautician, working in parlour and also providing tuition to kids. On the other hand, the respondent/wife in her income affidavit stated that the appellant/husband is commercial vehicle cab owner and also a driver and earning Rs.30,000/- pm.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, documents, impugned order dt.10.05.2022 and the materials on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no dispute about the marriage and Crl. Appeal No. 104/2022 Jasvinder Kaur V. Manpreet Singh Page No. 4 of 5 relationship of husband and wife and also the minor child. It is also admitted that the minor child is residing with the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife has not filed any document with regard to the alleged income of the appellant/husband before the Ld. MM. The factum of income of the parties and financial status of the appellant-herein is yet to be considered and decided after leading evidence by both the parties before the Ld. Trial Court. Considering the fact that the minor child is living with complainant/wife who has no source of income and is in dire need of financial assistance and also to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order dt.10.05.2022 is modified to the extent that the appellant- herein/husband shall pay an amount of Rs.3500/- pm to the respondent- herein/wife as ad interim maintenance for the minor child from filing of the said petition u/s 12 of the said Act till disposal of the interim maintenance application u/s 23(2) of the said Act. Ad interim / Interim maintenance / maintenance amount awarded in any other proceedings shall be adjusted in this case. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Trial Court record along with the copy of this Judgment be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Ld. Counsel as well as parties are directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on the date already fixed on 20.10.2022. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2022.09.28
19:14:57 +0530
Announced in the open court (YASHWANT KUMAR)
today on 28th September 2022 Principal District & Sessions Judge
North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi
Crl. Appeal No. 104/2022 Jasvinder Kaur V. Manpreet Singh Page No. 5 of 5