Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thereafter, for the AY 2019-20, the respondent no.1 has declared gross total income of Rs.2,43,110/- and from the computation it is noted that the income from house property was not declared but income from business is declared. Similarly, for the AY 2020-21, the respondent no.1 has declared total income of Rs.2,62,010/- and has declared income from business and not income from house property. Now, it is evidence that income of the respondent no.1 as declared in the ITR has drastically reduced from AY 2016-17 to 2020-21. There is no explanation as to what happened to the properties in respect of which income from house property was declared in the AY 2018-19 but not in the subsequent years. It must be noted that the alleged date of separation is 19.03.2018, i.e. the end of financial year 2017-18(AY 2018-19). It is only after the said AY, that the income as well as source of respondent no.1 has changed with effect from AY 2019-20 and for AY 2020-21, that too without any explanation as to the source of income and change of the ownership of the house properties. It, thus, appears that respondent no.1 has tried to manipulate his sources "DV Act"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 22:09:24 morally and legally obliged to maintain his wife. If due to a culpable act of husband, the wife is forced to reside with her parents, the husband cannot escape from his liability to ensure a suitable accommodation for the wife in terms of Section-19 of DV Act. If this alternate accommodation is not in the scene, the Ld. Trial Court cannot be faulted with in granting rental expenses. The Magistrate has also been considerate while deciding the rental expenses. She has directed such payment to be made for future rental expenses on filing of rent agreement. I am of the view that no grievance can be raised by Dev Tyagi in this regard.

7. So far enhancement is concerned, it seems that Kanika Sharma has included the properties and assets of her in-laws without clarifying as to whether the same specifically belong to Dev Tyagi or not. It is not the law that the husband should take money from his parents or from their assets and then pay to the wife. It is this misconceived notion which appears to have prompted the Kanika Sharma to claim enhancement. I am further of the view that a matter related to interim maintenance should not be placed at the footing of final proceedings. There will be sufficient opportunities to both the sides to prove their allegations and counter-allegations including in respect of the actual income and expenses. Upon conclusion of evidence, a clear view can be taken in respect of the actual income of Dev Tyagi and actual maintenance requirement of Kanika Sharma. Thereafter the Ld. Trial Court can take a decision to enhance or reduce the maintenance. Nowadays, parties of domestic violence proceedings are fighting the interim maintenance till the end as if the same is the end of the matter. This is, however, not so. In my opinion, at this stage, there is no necessity to enhance the maintenance awarded by the Ld. Trial Court but at the same time considering the medical needs of the Kanika Sharma, I am of the view that the Ld. Trial Court should take a call for making proper arrangement in the form of medical insurance or ensuring that the medical needs of the wife Kanika Sharma is not frustrated due to shortage of funds. Section-23(1) of the DV Act does not say that interim orders can be passed only at once. Interim orders can be passed at any stage and for any number of times. The only pre-condition is that it should be just in the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate. Considering this situation, I am of the view that if Kanika Sharma applies for interim orders in respect of medical needs, the Ld. Magistrate may deal with the same in accordance with the law but at the earliest. At the same time, the main proceedings should not be stopped for any reason whatsoever and adjournments for evidence should not be granted unless exceptional circumstances are shown (In this case, it seems that Kanika Sharma has not cooperated for evidence despite several opportunities, as appearing from the last order passed by the L.d. Trial Court). Time has come to indicate to the parties that the Parliament has obliged the Courts to dispose the main proceedings within 60 days and the Courts will handle the situation strictly.

15. The submission that Respondent No. 2 had concealed her employment status and her income cannot at this stage advance the case of the Petitioner. The Appellate Court examined this exact argument and acknowledged that although Respondent No. 2 initially failed to disclose her employment and hid her income, it also recognized that her employment terminated in June 2020 and she has subsequently served as the primary caregiver for a minor child. The Trial Court has exercised its power under Section 23 of the DV Act for grant of interim relief. At this stage, the Court is not expected to weigh rival depositions or test the veracity of disputed admissions as if conducting a mini-trial.