Delhi District Court
Sudha Bhadhauria vs Sanjay Jain on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 256/2024
PS- Sarita Vihar
U/Sec. 29 PWDV Act
In the matter of :-
Sudha Bhadauria
D/o Major (Late) Sh. Rajendra Pal Singh
R/o H. No. 465, Sector 28
Noida, Uttar Pradesh .... Appellant
VERSUS
Sanjay Jain
S/o Late Sh. R.K. Jain
R/o L-179, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi. .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 02.08.2024
Date of Arguments : 21.04.2025
Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2025
Decision : Appeal Dismissed.
Impugned Order Upheld.
JUDGMENT
1. Present criminal appeal U/Sec 29 of the Protection Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 by complainant/ revisionist Sudha Bhadauria against the order dated 01.07.2024 (hereinafter referred as 'impugned order') passed by Ld. Trial Court in CT case No. 809/2021 titled as "Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain" whereby Ld. Trial Court has directed respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- per month towards the expenses of both the children of the parties. CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 1 of 19
2. In order to avoid any confusion, both the parties will be referred with the same nomenclature with which they were referred before Ld. Trial Court, in my subsequent paragraphs.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of present appeal as mentioned in appeal are as follows :-
"It is stated that the marriage of the complainant namely Sudha Bhadauria was solemnized with respondent namely Sanjay Jain on 26.03.2004 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. From the wedlock, two children namely Adwiti (daughter) and Aayush (son) were born on 24.11.2004 and 06.07.2006 respectively. After marriage, complainant started residing at the matrimonial home at Laxmi Bai Nagar which was a government accommodation allotted to brother of the respondent. Thereafter, in the year 2005 due to paucity of space, a DDA Flat No. L-179, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, was purchased and the said Flat was an allotment by DDA in favour of father of complainant. However, after the death of father of complainant, it was transferred/ mutated in the name of complainant and she has became the exclusive owner of said Flat which stands in her name in the records of DDA. Soon after the purchase of said Flat, the parties along-with the parents of respondent shifted to the said Flat in the year 2006 and has since been residing therein. That for the last 17 years of marriage, the complainant has been subjected to innumerable acts of cruelty, atrocities and harassment at the instance of respondent which became unbearable for the complainant to reside at CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 2 of 19 the matrimonial home. Thereafter on 11.04.2021, due to difficult circumstances for the complainant to reside under the same roof, as she apprehended an imminent threat to her life at the instance of respondent particularly owing to the fact that complainant was beaten black and blue by respondent on the aforesaid day, she had to run away from the matrimonial home without even wearing her slippers, to save her own life along-with her daughter. It has been stated that complainant and respondent are well qualified having their LL.B before their marriage and the respondent is a practicing lawyer having chamber at Patiala House Courts. That complainant do not practice anywhere and had been working with various companies from time to time as a legal associate. That the complainant was ill treated and harassed by the respondent. It has been prayed in the complaint that respondent be restrained from causing any hindrance or creating nuisance in the peaceful occupation of the complainant in the shared household as aforesaid and to restrain the respondent from dispossessing and disturbing the possession of the charge-sheet from the aforesaid shared household, to restrain the respondent from entering the shared household. Complainant also prayed for relief of medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- for her and minor daughter, an amount of Rs. 25 Lacs towards stridhan articles, Rs. 25 Lacs towards compensation and damages to the complainant, directions to respondent to remove himself from the aforesaid flat."
CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 3 of 19
4. Thereafter, complainant filed her complaint under the DV Act before Ld. Trial Court on 14.06.2021 and exparte ad-interim relief was granted to the complainant whereby respondent husband was restrained from selling or alienating the matrimonial house/ property bearing no. L-179, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi without the permission the Court and complainant was also granted permission to visit the matrimonial house on 16.06.2021 to collect her belongings and the belongings of her daughter from the aforesaid property and DIR report was called. On 24.06.2021, respondent was summoned and respondent appeared before the Ld. Trial Court 19.07.2021 and both the parties sought time to settle the matter. On 02.08.2021, both parties appeared before the court and were directed to furnish their income affidavits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Rajnesh Vs. Neha. On 01.09.2021, complainant mentioned before Ld. Trial Court that she had joined a job on 19.07.2021 and does not wish to press her application u/sec. 23 DV Act for seeking interim relief/ monthly maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. Subsequently, the aforesaid relief was struck off from the petition and meanwhile complainant moved an application for seeking interim custody of the minor son and the same was decided by Ld. Trial Court on 28.10.2021. Subsequently, on another application, the custody of the minor son Ayush was permanently granted to the complainant and since then both children have been residing with the complainant. On 19.10.2022 and 21.12.2022 respondent was granted last opportunity to file his Written Statement. However, on 06.03.2023, an application u/sec. 23 DV Act for seeking interim relief was again CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 4 of 19 filed on behalf of the complainant and respondent was directed to file reply of the same and despite opportunity, Written Statement was not filed. On 29.05.2023, the right of the respondent to file Written Statement was struck off and the matter was listed for consideration on application moved on behalf of the complainant u/sec. 29 DV Act and again respondent and the complainant were directed to file their income affidavits in terms of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and the matter was listed for 13.09.2023. On 13.09.2023, income affidavit was filed by complainant and again respondent sought time to file his income affidavit and reply to the application of the complainant and matter was fixed for 03.02.2024. On 03.02.2024, respondent again failed to file his income affidavit and therefore, even right to file income affidavit on behalf of respondent was closed. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 01.07.2024, the aforesaid application of the complainant u/sec. 23 DV Act for seeking interim relief i.e. (a) an interim maintenance of Rs.2,50,000/- per month for complainant and her two children along-with litigation expenses of Rs. 2 Lacs and (b) seeking order directing respondent to remove himself from shared household bearing Flat No. L-179, Sarita Vihar, N. Delhi, was decided.
5. After hearing the parties on the application for interim relief, Ld. Trial Court vide its order dated 01.07.2024 has directed the respondent to pay a maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- per month towards the expenses of both the children, payable on or before 5 th day of each English calender month from 06.03.2023 and till disposal of the present case.
CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 5 of 19
6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, complainant has challenged the said order by way of present appeal on the following grounds :-
A. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises while completely ignoring the material available on record and as such is liable to be set aside and dismissed.
B. The impugned Order has been passed in a mechanical manner and without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is liable to be set aside. The Learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the submissions on facts as well as law that were led on behalf of the appellant herein. Hence, on this ground alone, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside.
C. The Impugned Order has been passed without considering the objective and purpose of award of interim maintenance as per settled law on the issue and as such is liable to be set aside. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajnesh vs Neha" (2021) 2 SCC 324 observed that "a careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home". The Apex Court in numerous judgments has clarified the stance that a wife is entitled to the same standard of living as she was accustomed to while she was residing with the Respondent/Husband. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that "On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and pleadings on record." It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court erred gravely by arriving at a figure of Rs.2.5 lakhs as the income of the CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 6 of 19 Respondent while the Appellant claimed that the Respondent is earning a sum of Rs.8 lakhs per month. The Respondent failed to file his written statement and income affidavit and hence, on this ground, the maintenance was to be decided based on the pleadings of the Appellant.
D. That Ld. Trial Court has erred gravely in drawing an inference and recording a finding to the effect that it can be presumed that the respondent is earning at least 2.5 lakhs per month. In this regard, at the outset it is submitted that a bare perusal of the relevant part of the impugned order would show that the Learned Trial Court has not stated as to by what process of reasoning the Learned Trial Court arrived at the figure of 2.5 lakhs. There is no mention in the impugned order of any material on record, or plea of the respondent in this regard, considering which the Learned Trial Court assumed the income of the respondent to be INR 2.5 lacs per month.
E. That Learned Trial Court erred gravely in not considering the effect of non-filing of an affidavit of income as mandated by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh v/s Neha (2021 2 SCC 324) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held, "On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record." As such, it is pertinent to state that the impugned order is entirely silent as to why the pleas of the appellant duly contained within the application under Section 23(2) of the PWDVA, 2005 filed on her behalf as well as the affidavit of income filed on her behalf were disbelieved by the Learned Trial Court.
F. That Learned Trial Court erred gravely in not considering the effect of the respondent choosing, despite numerous opportunities, to refuse to traverse the material pleas and submissions of the appellant with regard to the income of the respondent. In this regard, it is CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 7 of 19 submitted that the record of the matter would reveal the constant and concerted efforts of the respondent to frustrate and vitiate the court proceedings and the scant regard he has for the Court of Law.
H. That Ld. Trial Court did not take into account that since the right of the Respondent to file his written statement and income affidavit was struck off, the averments made by the Appellant were to be relied upon. The contention of the Appellant that the Respondent earns a handsome sum of Rs.8,00,000/- per month from flourishing practice as a lawyer and apart from the same has income from interest from FDRs. The Ld. Trial Court also did not take into account the fact that the Respondent purchased a property bearing House No. 54, Sector 135, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, which is ad-measuring about 280 square yards which the Respondent had purchased from his own funds, though the same is in the name of his mother, and that the Respondent owns jewellery worth crores. The entire Impugned Order is silent in this regard.
I. That Learned Trial Court erred gravely in not considering that in view of the illegal acts and omissions of the respondent in, inter alia, continuing to illegally occupy the house owned solely and exclusively by the appellant at flat bearing No. L-179, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110076 and by making it impossible for the appellant and the two children to live therein, the respondent has constrained the appellant to not only incur recurring monthly expenditure towards rent but further has also constrained the appellant to incur expenditure towards setting up a new house including all furniture, fixtures, appliances etc. In this regard it would be pertinent to state that the Appellant was living in a rented accommodation having 2.5 BHK, wherein she was paying a monthly rent of Rs.24,200/- per month.
J. That Learned Trial Court erred gravely in not deciding, or even averting, to the prayer for award of litigation expenses as specifically pleaded and prayed for in the application under Section 23(2) of thew CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 8 of 19 PWDVA, 2005 filed on behalf of the appellant. In this regard, it is submitted that as duly averred, which averments remain entirely untraversed by the respondent, the appellant has been constrained to approach the Hon'ble Courts of Law solely due to the illegal acts and omissions of the respondent herein. As such, the Learned Trial Court ought to have awarded the litigation expenses as claimed by the appellant, or at the very least, ought to have stated the reasoning whereby the Learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to award thereof. On this ground as well, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
K. That Ld. Trial Court has only provided a paltry sum of Rs.70,000/- for the maintenance of both the children. Although the Ld. Trial Court has acknowledged the fact that the Respondent has not made any contribution towards the expenses of the children, however, the Ld. Trial Court has not provided any maintenance for the Appellant on the grounds that she is a working woman and has sufficient income to sustain herself. The Appellant in her income affidavit has stated that she earns a monthly income of Rs.2,34,354/- and her general monthly expenditure is Rs.1,02,538/-. The Appellant has stated that the monthly expenditure of her son is Rs.1,07,448/- and the monthly expenditure of her daughter is Rs.87,000/-. By providing a paltry sum of Rs.70,000/- for the maintenance of both the children, the Appellant is constrained to look after her own expenditure of Rs. 1,02,538/- and the expenses of the children which comes out to be Rs. 1,24,354/- per month, while allowing the respondent to continue to take advantage of his own wrongs.
7. In addition, Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that in the present matter the complainant has suffered domestic violence at the hands of the respondent. It has been argued that after filing of the complaint, initially the complainant had not pressed for seeking interim CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 9 of 19 maintenance for herself and the minor daughter and the right for the same was struck off vide order dated 01.09.2021. However, vide order dated 21.122021, the custody of the son namely Ayush was also handed over to the complainant and since then , the complainant has been taking care of both the minor children and since now the complainant is looking after both the minor children, she was finding it extremely difficult to manage her expenses as well as for both the children who are school going. It has been argued that only due to the additional expense, she had moved an application u/sec. 23 DV Act before Ld. Trial Court and had filed their income affidavit in support of her expenses as well as income. It has been argued that despite opportunities, it is the respondent who has failed to file his income affidavit and therefore his right was struck off by Ld. Trial Court. It has been argued that the expenses towards both children are around Rs.1,40,000/- per month and the same have been mentioned in application moved before Ld. Trial Court, however the maintenance awarded to the complainant by Ld. Trial Court is inadequate and therefore the present appeal has been filed with the prayer that the maintenance awarded be increased as the complainant is entitled to claim interim maintenance for an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lacs per month towards both the children and Rs. 2 Lacs as mediation expenses. It has been argued that the complainant had also sought relief under the aforesaid application before Ld. Trial Court to direct the respondent to vacate the Flat No. L-179, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, which is owned solely by the complainant.
CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 10 of 19
8. On the other hand, respondent being a lawyer himself has argued the appeal moved on behalf of the complainant is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. It has been argued that the complainant and the respondent after marriage resided together peacefully and two children from the wedlock were born. It has been argued that it was the complainant who without any reason had left the company of the respondent on 11.04.2021 without any reason along-with the minor daughter and the son of the parties remained in the custody of the respondent. However, the complainant later took away the custody of the minor son and poisoned his mind against the respondent only with an intention to harass the respondent. It has been argued that the currently the respondent is residing in the property no. L-179, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi with his old aged mother. He has further argued that the respondent had never ill treated the complainant and since the respondent had been unwell for past few years, and has not been earning, he cannot be burdened with the maintenance amount claimed by the complainant towards the expenses of the minor children which is exaggerated. It has been argued that the complainant herself is extremely qualified and is a practicing lawyer and infact when the respondent was suffering from ailments, his entire practice being a lawyer was taken up by the complainant and it was the complainant who has been taking all the financial benefits of the profession of the respondent and the same could be verified from the bank account statements of the complainant. It has been argued that the complainant CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 11 of 19 had purposely filed her application u/sec. 23 DV Act for seeking maintenance only in the year 2023 so that she does not have to file her bank account statements or financial details for three years prior to the filing of the present complaint in June 2021 which could have shown that the complainant had strong financial resources. It has been argued that the complainant has claimed to have been expenses towards both the children which are exorbitant and unjustified. It has further been argued that the complainant herself has admitted to be working as senior legal counsel for a company named Suzlon Energy Ltd. and having monthly income of Rs. 234354/- and the same is sufficient to maintain the minor children who are in the custody of the complainant. It has further been argued that the complainant is having several investments in mutual funds/ LIC Policy/ FDs which are more than Rs. 2 crores and therefore the application for seeking enhancement of interim maintenance is liable to be rejected. It has been argued that impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court, is legally correct and needs no interference. It has been further argued that complainant is well qualified and is earning sufficient and does not require any further maintenance. Further, it has been argued that respondent is taking care of all the expenses of the two minor children whenever asked by the complainant. It has been argued that Ld. Trial Court has completely appreciated the documents placed on record by both the parties and carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. It has been argued that the complainant has not appeared before the Court with clean hands and infact has concealed regarding her income CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 12 of 19 and financial statements. It has been argued that respondent has never shied away from his responsibilities of taking care of the complainant and children and therefore, the order of Ld. Trial Court does not require any interference. Respondent has further argued that the complainant is highly educated and is capable of earning and further that the complainant left the respondent without any cause. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhigal Vs. Veerama Reddy JC 1922 dated 15.05.1922.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant/appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, para 62, wherein it has been held that :
62. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband".
10. Ld. Counsel for complainant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sunita Kachwaha & Ors, Vs. Anil Kachwaha 2014 16 SCC 715, wherein it has been held that para 10 :-
10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own and needs no financial support from respondent. In our considered view, merely because the CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 13 of 19 appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings.
In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The Family Court had in extenso referred to the respondent's salary and his economic condition. The respondent is stated to be an Engineer in PHE, Kota. He is in Government service and according to the pay certificate then produced before the Family Court, he was getting salary of Rs.20,268/- per month. In her evidence, appellant-wife has also stated that the respondent owns a very big house of his own in which he is said to have opened a hostel for boys and girls and is earning a substantial income. She has also stated that the respondent owns another house at Talmandi Sabji Kota, Rajasthan and is receiving rental income of Rs.4,500/- per month. Having regard to the salary and economic condition of the respondent, the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,500/- to each of the daughters, in total Rs.8,000/- per month. It is stated that the maintenance amount awarded to the daughters has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month. The maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to the wife appears to be minimal and in our view, the High Court ought not to have set aside the award of maintenance. The learned counsel for the appellants prayed for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance to the appellant-wife. We are not inclined to go into the said submission, but liberty is reserved to the appellant- wife to seek remedy before the appropriate court.
CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 14 of 19
11. I have heard arguments addressed by respective parties and have carefully perused the record including Trial Court Record.
12. Section 20 of the DV Act stipulates that a Magistrate hearing an application under Section 12 of the DV Act may direct the Respondent to pay certain monetary relief to the aggrieved person. It further delineates the contours of the monetary relief that is to be paid to the aggrieved person, including the criteria governing it as well as the manner in which the payment is to be made. For the ease of comprehension, Section 20 of the DV Act has been reproduced as under:-
"20. Monetary reliefs (1)While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,
(a)the loss of earnings;
(b)the medical expenses;
(c)the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d)the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.
CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 15 of 19 (2)The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed."
13. It is clear from the pleadings and arguments that the factum of marriage and the children being born from the said marriage and that said children are presently residing with the complainant, is admitted by the parties. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant has pointed out that respondent in the present matter despite opportunities have never filed any income affidavit or written statement before Ld. Trial Court and therefore the actual income of the respondent could not be ascertained in the absence of financial documents and therefore the trial court had ascertained the income of the respondent on the basis of averments made by the complainant and the documents placed on record by the complainant to be of Rs. 2.5 Lacs.
14. In the present matter, as I have observed in 'para 4' of the present judgment, the entire proceedings before Ld. Trial Court and have also taken note that the present complaint has been pending before Ld. Trial Court since 14.06.2021 and since then the respondent has never filed his written statement or income affidavit or bank account statement despite several opportunities and therefore his right was struck off. During the course of argument before undersigned, the respondent was granted opportunity to file his reply, however no reply was filed and several adjournments were sought on behalf of the respondent. Respondent in CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 16 of 19 his arguments has relied upon the documents filed by him before Ld. Trial Court in reply to the interim application of the complainant but did not file his income affidavit on one pretext or the other and the conduct itself shows that the respondent is purposely evading to show his actual financial status or the income earned by him. Respondent during arguments have read over the emails exchanged between the parties during their separation period to claim that it was the complainant who had left the company of the respondent without any reason and also that the respondent had kept her well. Respondent has claimed that the matrimonial house situated at L-179, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi was purchased by the respondent from his funds in the name of the father of complainant, though has not placed on record any document in support of his aforementioned claims and has stated that he has been residing in the aforesaid property as he has no other place to reside. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, respondent has also referred to the income affidavit of the complainant to show that the complainant has sufficient earning but again has failed to place on record any financial document to show his incapacity to pay the maintenance to the complainant and the minor children. It is not the case of the respondent that after separation he has paid any expenses to the complainant or to the minor children and infact it has been the complainant being the mother who has been taking care of both the children. The aforesaid facts and circumstances have been carefully considered by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 and only after taking into consideration, the income affidavit of the complainant and the expenses CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 17 of 19 of the minor children has rightly awarded the maintenance of Rs.70000/- towards both children. The aforesaid amount includes boarding, lodging and all the miscellaneous expenses of both the children. In the absence of the income affidavit of the respondent, Ld. Trial Court has rightly assessed the income of the respondent to be Rs.2.5 Lacs per month and since the claims of the complainant remained unrebutted, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly considered the submissions made on behalf of the complainant at the time of granting of interim maintenance to the complainant.
15. It is also an undisputed position that with the passage of time, the real value of the Rupee depreciates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020, decided on 04.11.2020, has also held that inflation as well as high costs of living will have to be considered whilst granting maintenance. The relevant portion is set out below:-
"80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications."
CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 18 of 19
16. Further, the claims made by the respondent that the complainant is highly educated and is capable of earning, is also not tenable as a woman who is a Law Graduate and is also looking after two minor children alone and is not having any financial support from her family, cannot be denied maintenance for the minor children.
17. In view of the aforesaid appreciation and record of this case, I find that respondent/ husband is still sufficiently remunerated and had assets generating income to provide a meaningful maintenance to his wife and children. Further, keeping in view of the fact that both the children are living with complainant and she is residing on rented accommodation, she has been rightly granted maintenance of Rs.70000/- per month for the minor children. Accordingly, the maintenance amount of Rs. 70,000/- granted to the complainant by Ld. Trial Court, is correct and does not require any interference. Present Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. The impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, stands upheld.
TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment. Appeal File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHEETAL SHEETAL CHAUDHARY ANNOUNCED IN THE CHAUDHARY Date: OPEN COURT TODAY 2025.05.16 16:03:04 +0530 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 16.05.2025 CA No. 256/2024 U/Sec. 29 DV Act Sudha Bhadauria Vs. Sanjay Jain Page no. 19 of 19