Sh. Kuldeep Singh vs Sharmila Devi on 27 January, 2018

                     DWARKA COURTS :  NEW DELHI.

In the matter of :­

                     CA No.286/17

Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
S/o Shri Harkesh,
R/o House No.140, Near Jato Ki Chaupal,
Village Pochanpur, Post Office Dhulsaras,
Dwarka Sector­23,
New Delhi – 110 077.                       …………. Appellant/

Sharmila Devi
W/o Shri Kuldeep Singh,
D/o Shri Abhay Singh,
R/o House No.140,  Near Jato Ki Chaupal,
Village Pochanpur, Post Office Dhulsaras,
Dwarka Sector­23,
New Delhi – 110 077. ………… Respondent/


Date of Institution              :  25.08.2017
Date of conclusion of arguments :  27.01.2018

CA-286/17 1/8
Date of Order          :  27.01.2018


1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the present appeal
preferred against the impugned order dated 23.06.2017 passed by
Ld MM, Dwarka, New Delhi whereby the Ld. MM has allowed the
application of the complainant/appellant u/s 23 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Act’ ) for interim relief.   For the sake of convenience
accused/appellant   and   respondent/complainant   are   hereby
referred to as appellant and complainant)

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal
are   like   this.     The   respondent   was   married   with   appellant   on
26.06.2004.     Out   of   this   wedlock   two   children   were   born.     The
respondent was subjected to domestic violence by the appellant.
The   appellant   used   to   taunt   the   respondent   for   bringing
insufficient   dowry.     The   appellant   was   also   admitted   in   de­
addiction centres a number of times.   On 13.09.2015 respondent
made a police complaint against the appellant.   The respondent
was tortured and beaten up by the appellant time and again and
was also abused by the appellant physically as well as mentally.

CA-286/17 2/8
It is stated that the appellant is a man of means and has rental
income of Rs.1 lac to 1.5 lacs and other sources. The appellant
filed reply to the application denying all the allegations made in
the complaint.  The  shared household is the ancestral property of
the appellant, which has now come to the share of his sister and
rental   income   from   that   said   property   was   the   only   source   of
livelihood of appellant and now he is on the mercy of others for his
survival.  The appellant is incapable of earning and is undergoing
mental treatment.  The respondent deserted the appellant on her
own   and   did   not   return.     Both   the   parties   filed   their   detailed
affidavit   of   assets.     After   going   through   the   record,   ld.   MM
through   order   dated   13.10.2016   allowed   the   application   for
interim relief and awarded maintenance to the respondents and
her children @ Rs.15,000/­ p.m. 

3. Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   impugned   order   present
appeal has been filed.

4. It has been contended that ld. Trial court has passed
the order of maintenance against a person who is medically   ill
and his treatment is going on for the long period.   Ld. MM has
also hold that appellant is mentally ill and he is getting treatment

CA-286/17 3/8
for a long period at IHBAS at Dilshad Garden.  ld. MM has passed
the impugned order without examination of the ownership of the
ancestral   properties   and   income   accrued   therefrom.   It   is
contended that order of maintenance cannot be passed against a
person who is mentally disabled. The impugned order suffers from
the illegality which is writ large on the face of it in as much as the
ld.   MM   has   wrongly   allowed   the   application   for   interim
maintenance without expiscating the material on record.

5. Per   contra   ld.   Counsel   for   the   respondent   has
contended   that   there   is   no   substance   in   this   appeal   and   the
impugned   order   has   been   passed   by   the   trial   court   after
appreciating  the settled principle of law by  superior  court  with
regard to grant of interim maintenance.   There is documentary
evidence   on   record.     The   appellant   is   owner   of   the   properties
namely,   House   no.941,   Flat   No.201,   Pocham   Pur,   Sector­23,
Dwarka, New Delhi and Plot no.302, House No.926, Third Floor
(back   side),   Village   Pochampur,   Sector­23,   Dwarka,   New   Delhi
(hereinafter   referred   to  as  “the said   properties”).  The  appellant
has rented out two places owned by him through rent agreements
and ld. trial court after appreciating oral as well as documentary
evidence   on   record   has   rightly   assessed   the   amount   of

CA-286/17 4/8
maintenance of the respondent as well as that of her two children
@ Rs.15,000/­. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be

6. I   have   heard   ld.   Counsel   for   the   parties   and   have
perused the material available on record.

7. Alongwith this appeal an application for condonation
of delay has also been filed by the appellant stating therein that
the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal and the grounds
stating therein be read as part and parcel of this application.  The
appellant   is   mentally   ill   person   undergoing   treatment   from
IBHAS   and   applicant   has   taken   the   legal   aid   for   pursuing   the
legal   proceedings   including   appeal   also.     The   appellant   was
supplied   copy   of   paper   book   on   18.07.2017   and   thereafter   the
appellant engaged the present counsel to file the present appeal,
therefore, the delay  of 32 days has occurred in filing the present
appeal and the same be condoned.

8. No   reply   to   this   application   has   been   filed   by   ld.
Counsel for the respondent, but it has been contended that the
appellant has failed to explain the sufficient cause in filing this

CA-286/17 5/8
appeal and in the absence of any such cause, this application as
well as this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9.   Law   with   regard   to   condonation   of   delay   is   well
settled  that   court   is  supposed   to  adopt   a  pragmatic   view while
dealing   with   application   for   condonation   of   delay   and   not   a
pedantic one.  If the applicant is able to explain the delay in filing
the application and the said explanation is found to be plausible,
the   delay   can   be   condoned.     The   case   of   the   applicant   is
admittedly   falling   within   the   meaning   of   “sufficient   cause”   as
provided   in   section   5   of   the   Limitation   Act   in   as   much   as   the
appellant filed this appeal as soon as he received the paper book
and   other   documents.     As   such,   ld.   counsel   is   able   to   show
sufficient   cause   in   filing   this   application.     This   application   for
seeking condonation of delay deserves to be allowed and delay of
32 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.  This application
is disposed of accordingly.

10. It may be noted that a perusal of Domestic Violence
Act   shows   that   Domestic   Violence   Act   does   not   create   any
additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance.  It only
enables the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the

CA-286/17 6/8
rights available under existing laws.  While, the Act specifies the
duties   and   functions   of   protection   officer,   police   officer,   service
providers,   magistrate,   medical   facility   providers   and   duties   of
Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband or the
duties   of   wife.     Thus,   maintenance   can   be   fixed   by   the   Court
under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding
providing   of   maintenance   by   husband   to   the   wife.     Under
prevalent   laws   i.e.   Hindu   Adoption     Maintenance   Act,   Hindu
Marriage   Act,   Section   125  
Cr.P.C.   ­   a   husband   is   supposed   to
maintain his un­earning spouse out of the income which he earns.

11. It   may   be   noted   that   respondent   has   been   awarded
maintenance   @   Rs.15,000/­   p.m.   for   herself   as   well   as   her   two
children.   It is also relevant to mention here that there are two
rent agreements placed on record entered between appellant and
the tenant inducted in the said properties owned by the appellant
and   the   amount   of   rent   of   both   the   said   tenanted   premises   is
Rs.23,000/­ p.m. Therefore, viewed from any angle the amount of
Rs.15,000/­awarded to the respondent as well as her two children
cannot be stated to be higher, therefore, this appeal is devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed.

CA-286/17 7/8

12. From   the   above   discussions,   I   find   no   ostensible
reason to disagree with the view already taken by the Trial Court
after appreciating the material on record. Therefore, I found no
substance   in   the   present   appeal,   hence,   the   same   is   hereby

Needless   to   say   that   nothing   stated   herein   shall
tantamount to any expression of my opinion on the merits of the

Appeal petition file be consigned to Record Room. TCR
be sent back alongwith copy of this order.

Announced in the open court today,
On 27th Day of  January, 2018.

         (Dr. V.K. DAHIYA)
         DWARKA COURTS/27.01.2018

CA-286/17 8/8
CA-286/17 9/8

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *