SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

[Deen Dayal vs . Preeti @ Pinki] on 2 March, 2017

In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017


Crl. Appeal No.:  28/2017
U/S  397 / 399  Cr.PC.

S/o.: Mahender Singh,
R/o.: F­4/23, Sultan Puri,
              […… Appellant ]
v e r s u s

W/o.: Deen Dayal,
D/o Ram Prasad,
R/o E­723, Mangol Puri,
     […. Respondent]

Date of Institution of Appeal :    05.11.2016
Date of Allocation :    07.11.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments :    02.03.2017
Date of Order :    02.03.2017

[Particulars related to impugned order]
C.C. No. :  4265/2016
Under Section :  12 DV Act 
Police Station :  Mangol Puri
Date of Impugned Order :  22.09.2016
Name of Ld.Trial Court :  Ms. Shefali Barnala Tandon,
   Ld.MM (Mahila Court)
   North­West District, 
   Rohini Courts, Delhi. 

Memo of appearance:­
Sh. Narender Kumar, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for revisionist.  
Sh. Ajay Kumar Khowal, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for respondent.  

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

O R D E R :­

1.   An application/ petition under section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 was preferred by Smt. Preeti
@   Pinki   against   accused   /   respondent   Deen   Dayal,   wherein   interim
maintenance   order   was   passed   by   Ld.   Mahila   Court   on   22.09.2016.
Challenging   the   said   order   though   respondent   therein   namely   Deen
Dayal had filed the present revision petition.  For challenging the said
order,   an   appeal   should   have   been   preferred.     However,   in   order   to
avoid withdrawal  of the present petition and   filing of fresh, request
made by Ld. Counsel for Deen Dayal is accepted and present petition is
treated as Criminal Appeal.  The same is being considered and disposed
off accordingly. 

2.   Appellant   has   taken   exception   to   the   orders   dated
22.09.2016  passed   by   Ms.   Shefali   Barnala   Tandon,   Ld.Metropolitan

Magistrate, Mahila Courts, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, whereby he has
been directed to pay interim maintenance @ of Rs.6000/­ per month for
the year 2013, Rs. 6400/­ per month for the year 2014 to 2016 and Rs.
6600/­ per month from April 2016 onwards to   the respondent herein
and three minor children who are in care and custody of respondent
Preeti @ Pinki.

3.   Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent  Preeti @
Pinki who is the complainant / applicant  before Ld.Trial Court.  Trial
Court Record was also summoned.

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

4.   Pursuant to service of notice,  Sh. Ajay Kumar Khowal,

Advocate,   Ld.   Counsel     for   respondent   has   tendered   his   appearance
alongwith respondent.

5.   I have heard the arguments advanced by  Sh. Narender

Kumar, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the appellant.   I have also heard

Sh.Ajay   Kumar   Khowal,  Advocate,   Ld.Counsel   for   the   respondent

Preeti   @   Pinki.   I   have   gone   through   the   appeal   and   the  grounds   on
which the same has been filed.  I have also perused the complaint filed
by the respondent against the appellant before Ld.Trial Court. I have

also  perused  the  impugned   order  dated  22.09.2016    the  trial   court


6.   Ms. Preeti @ Pinki had filed an application under section
12   of   Protection   of   Women   from   Domestic   Violence   Act,   2005
(hereinafter referred to as PWDV Act) before Ld. Trial Court wherein
she had come up with following prayers :­

(a) Pass orders under section 20 of the Act in favor of the
applicant   /aggrieved   person   ie.   Ms.Preeti   @   Pinki,
directing respondent ie. Deen Dayal to pay a sum of (i) Rs.
25,000/­  per   month  towards   food,   clothing,   medication,
water   bill,   electricity   bill     other   basic   necessities.   (ii)
She further claimed for return of jewellery ornaments and
other valuables worth Rs. 2,00,000/­. (iii) She claimed a
lump   sum   relief   towards   mental   injuries   and   litigation
expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/­  

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

(b) Pass orders under section  18  of the Act protecting the
applicant from the impending Domestic Violence.

(c)   Pass   orders   under   section  19  of   the   Act   restraining
respondents   from   dispossessing   her   from   the   shared
household   and   from   alienating   the   shared   household
situated  at House no. 963, Village  Post Office Kuiya,
Tehsil Sefai, District Itawa, UP.

7.   As   per   the   complaint,   Preeti   @   Pinky   was   married   to
respondent   Deen   Dayal   who   is   appellant   herein   on   18.07.2002.   It   is
stated that she was blessed with four children namely Tarun Kumar,
Satender Kumar, Teena and Nidhi. It is contended that one of the child
namely Nidhi unfortunately expired on 28.07.2013. It is alleged   that
the other three children are with the complainant / respondent. It is
alleged   by   the   complainant   that   from   the   day   of   marriage,   she   was
taunted,   tortured     and   harassed     by   her   husband   and   in­laws   for
bringing   insufficient   dowry.   It   is   alleged   that   respondent   who   is
appellant   herein   is   in   a   habit   of   taking   liquor   and   used   to   beat   the
complainant. It is contended by the complainant in her petition that
respondent never used to pay any amount towards household expenses
and used to spent his income on his bad habits. 

8.   It   is   submitted   that   complainant  and   respondent
subsequently   started   residing   at   Mangol   Puri,   Delhi   but   respondent
leaving complainant and three children, ran away to his native place
avoiding   his   legal   and   moral   obligations   towards   complainant   and

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

9.   According to the stand taken by husband / respondent, who
is appellant herein, as is evident from the reply to the complaint that,
all   the   allegations   levelled   by   the   complainant   against   him   and   his
family   members   of   alleged  domestic   violence   are   stated   to  be  vague,
baseless   and   false.   He   contended   that   she   herself   was   aggressive,
arrogant,   un­cooperative   and   temperamental   and   used   to   pick   up
quarrel on petty trifling matters.  He claimed that owing to   behaviour
of  complainant  towards  his  family  members,   respondent  /    husband
agreed to live separately from his parents in a rented accommodation at
K­979, Mangol Puri, Delhi and thereafter in Sultan Puri, Delhi. It is
contended   that   in  April   2013,  complainant  who   is   respondent   herein
alongwith   the   children   herself     had   left   the   company   of   appellant
without any cause or reason.  It is submitted that respondent/ husband
is working in a shop of making ladies bags and is earning only a salary
of Rs. 5000/­ per month. It is contended that he has to pay expenses on
his treatment as he has a leg injury sustained by him in an accident in
the year 1995.

10.   Respondent Deen Dayal who is appellant herein contended
that  in  view of  his  meager  income  and expenditure,    he  is  not  in    a
position to pay the maintenance as has been directed by Ld. Trial court
vide impugned order dated 22.09.2016.

11.   Perusal   of   trial   court   record   reveals   that   pursuant   to
orders of Ld.Trial Court, both the parties were directed to file affidavits,

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

stating   their   respective   qualifications,   assets,   income,   liabilities   etc.,
with supporting documents.

12.   Both   the   parties   in   compliance   thereof,   had   filed   their
respective affidavits.  

13.   Ld.Trial   Court   taking   stock   of   all   the   facts   and
circumstances  before it, and the documents  on record,  had chosen to
place reliance on the “minimum wages” prevalent for the relevant years
and directed appellant to pay interim maintenance @ of Rs.6000/­ per
month for the year 2013, Rs. 6400/­ per month for the year 2014 to 2016
and Rs. 6600/­ per month from April 2016 onwards to  the respondent
herein   and   three   minor   children   who   are   in   care   and   custody   of
respondent Preeti @ Pinki.

14.   Grouse   of   the   appellant   brought   to   the   fore   by  Sh.

Narender Kumar, Advocate, is that Ld.Trial Court has failed to take

into   account   that   as   per   the   affidavit   filed   by   the   appellant,   he   is
earning Rs. 5000/­ per month only, despite which he was directed to pay
a total compensation of more than Rs. 6000/­ per month to his wife and
three minor children.  It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for appellant that
he is a poor handicapped person and does not earn that much to comply
with the directions given in the impugned order. 

15.   On the other hand, Ld.Counsel for respondent’s wife, had
justified the impugned order stating that the same has been passed by

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

Ld.Trial Court after appreciating the material on record including the
affidavits filed by the parties. It is submitted that Ld. Trial court has
passed the orders on the basis of minimum wages prevalent as on date
of passing of orders, which any person who is semi skilled, which the
appellant is, is expected  to earn. 

16.   I have carefully gone through the trial court record, more
particularly the complaint, reply to it, affidavits of the parties and the
supporting documents.  I have also considered the impugned order and
the   grounds   of   appeal   assailing   the   same,   vis­a­vis   rival   contentions
raised by Ld.Counsels for both the parties. 

17.   In a  perfect society, men and women  complement  each

other rather than compete with each other.   They would rather derive
pleasure and happiness from  honoring  and not negating each other.

Unfortunately,   that   is   not   the   society   we   have   inherited.   Domestic
violence   is   a  pervasive   problem  in   India   that   cuts   across   age,

education, social class and religion.   It is not simply a legal problem
which can be eradicated by legal measures alone.   It is very much a
social   and   psychological   problem   and   can   be   tackled   adequately   by
bringing  about  fundamental  changes   in  the social system  and in the
attitudes of the people towards women and children.

18.   However,   here   we   are   with   the   present   proceedings   in
hand,   which   are   required   to   be   dealt­with,   according   to   the   legal
measures as per enacted laws and its interpretation by the Superior

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

Courts given from time to time.  

19.   To seek  maintenance  is basic and  indispensable right

of any hard­up and broke wife.  She can knock the doors of any court  ­
be   it   civil   court,   criminal   court   or   family   court.     Right   to   seek
maintenance   is   civil   right   falling   under   General   Laws   which   has
additionally been re­affirmed under PWDV Act as well.

20.   Maintenance can be sought by any wife, who is unable to
maintain herself, by invoking various following provisions, appearing in
different statutes:­

(i)   Maintenance   under   section   125   Criminal   Procedure
Code, 1973. Earlier there was an upper cap of Rs.500 per
month   which   was   eventually   deleted   with   effect   from

(ii)   Monetary relief including maintenance under section
20 (1) (d) of PWDV Act. Such Act came into existence with
effect from 13.09.2005.

(iii)Maintenance u/s 25 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

(iv)   Maintenance   u/s   18   of   Hindu   Adoption   and
Maintenance Act, 1956.

21.   Order   of   maintenance   under   section   125   Cr.P.C   is
somewhat   limited   and   restricted   whereas,   scope   of  grant   of

maintenance  and   financial   relief   under  PWDV   Act  is   definitely


  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017


22.   Legislature in its wisdom and being aware of the fact that
the decision on contentious issues raised by the parties before Court, is
likely   to   take   time,     therefore   it   had   incorporated   the   provisions   for
grant   of   interim   maintenance   in   the   Statute.     The   Court   is   thus
empowered   to   use   this   provision   to   pass   an   order   of   interim
maintenance, which however is subject to the final adjudication of the
respective rights of the parties after trial. 

23.   Thus, the argument of Ld.Counsel for the appellant that
without   having   recorded   the   evidence   regarding   income   of     the
appellant,   such   orders   cannot   be   passed,  does   not  hold   ground,   as

Ld.Trial Court was very much empowered to pass the order for grant

of interim maintenance.  It is however required to be seen as to whether
Ld.Trial Court while passing the impugned order,   had dealt with the
respective cases of the parties brought on record by them through their
affidavits and the documentary evidence, which I shall advert to now. 

24.   Next limb of the contentions urged by   Narender Kumar,
Advocate,   Ld.Counsel   for   the   appellant   was   that   Ld.Trial   Court   had
failed to appreciate that net income of appellant is Rs.5,000/­ per month
only, from which he has to incur expenses towards his own household,
thus he is not in a position to pay the maintenance to his wife who is
respondent in the present appeal. He contended that Ld. Trial court has
also failed to appreciate that respondent has to pay expenses towards
rent, electricity  water charges besides other household expenses. He

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

further   contended   that   Ld.   Trial   court   has   also   failed   to   take   into
account  that  he is incurring  expenses towards his medical treatment
@ of Rs. 500/­ per month. 

25.   I have considered these submissions made by Ld.Counsel
for the appellant in the light of the facts stated by him in reply to the
complaint before Ld.Trial Court as well as the affidavit filed declaring
his income, assets and liabilities including the monthly expenditure.

26.   Definitely, means and capacity of husband is required to

be   taken   into   consideration   while   determining   the   quantum   of
maintenance.     At   the   same   time,   as   per   PWDV   Act,   such   monetary
relief should be  adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent  with the

standard   of   living  to   which   the   aggrieved   person   is   accustomed.

Problem arises as there is widespread tendency to downplay or hide the
actual income by any such male partner. It is harsh reality that when
any   able­bodied   man   wants   to   enter   into   any   wedlock,   he   projects
himself  as   if   he   were   a  “Prince”  but   when   it   comes   to  making   any

payment  towards  the maintenance,  he projects  himself nothing  more
than a  “Pauper”.   Court has no magic wand and therefore, on some

occasions,   potential   earning   capacity   is   to   be   inferred   by   the   Court,
keeping in mind, the overall status and style of living of the parties.
Conduct   of   the   parties   is   also   one   such   consideration.     A   party   who
dares to conceal vital facts, makes things difficult for itself. 

27.   Perusal   of   the   affidavit   filed   along   with   the   supporting

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

documents by the appellant,  makes it apparent that the appellant has

tried   to  downplay   and   hide  his   actual  earnings  or   receipts   and

simultaneously tried to flatten his expenditures. 

28.   It is apparent on perusal of trial court record that in his
affidavit filed by appellant Deen Dayal on the trial court record which
bears the date of its execution and attestation as 01.09.2016, appellant
had   claimed   himself   to   be   8th  class   pass   and   working   as   tailor   with
someone   making   ladies   bag   at   Sultan   Puri,   Delhi.   Appellant   had
mentioned   his   monthly   income   as   Rs.   5000/­   per   month   as   salary.
Further   he   has   mentioned   his   expenditure   as   Rs.   5300/­   per   month
towards rent, groceries, electricity, gas, transport and medication. 

29.   Perusal of   the affidavit so filed by the appellant, taking
into   account   the   monthly   expenses   which   respondent   /appellant   is
incurring   as   stated   in   the   affidavit,   which   are   more   than   his   stated
income,    makes   it   apparent  that   his   monthly   income     has   been

wrongly stated by him to be Rs. 5000/­.  It is further apparent from the
said affidavit so filed by the appellant that he has deliberately failed to
mention any mobile  phone number of his and the expenses which he is
incurring on his mobile phone, whereas the appeal so preferred by the
appellant reveals that he in the memo of parties, has mentioned his
mobile   phone   number   as   9250777138.   This     makes   it   apparent   that
appellant did have a mobile phone and is regularly using the same on
which also, he must be incurring  some running cost on monthly basis.

Thus,   the   appellant   has   tried   to  conceal  a   vital   information   in   his

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

affidavit filed by him before Ld. Trial court. 

30.   This approach of the appellant is against the “Principles of

Equity   and   Fair   Justice”.     It   rather   seems   to   be  very   conscious,

calculated and deliberate omissions. 

31.   If   the   facts   stated   by   the   appellant   in   his   reply   to   the
complaint and the affidavit filed by him regarding his liabilities and
expenditure is considered as such, then it reveals that he is spending
more than his earnings.  Which cannot be the case.

32.   Further,   at   the   stage   of   fixing   interim   maintenance,
Ld.Trial   Court   had   to   do   little  guesswork  on   the   basis   of   material

before it, in the form of affidavits of the parties, supporting documents
and   the   photographs   of   their   goods   times   to   ascertain   the   type   of
lifestyle they were accustomed­to, at the time of parting their ways. 

33.   In the present case,   it is clearly mentioned by   Ld. Trial
court   in   the   impugned   orders   dated   22.09.2016,   that   the   interim
maintenance   in   favour   of   the   respondent   herein   for   herself   and   her
minor   children,   is   being   passed   taking   into   account   the  minimum

wages prevailing at the relevant time. It is further apparent on perusal

of impugned order that Ld. Trial court  had also taken into account that
appellant being the earning member is entitled to one extra portion /
share from the total income, which was taken on minimum wages basis.

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

It is only after granting that extra portion to the appellant, that the
order granting interim maintenance to respondent herein was passed
vide orders dated 22.09.2016.

34.   In   my   considered   opinion   and   on   the   basis   of     material
before Ld.Trial Court, it had  rightly  and  properly  fixed the interim

maintenance @ of Rs.6000/­ per month for the year 2013, Rs. 6400/­ per
month for the year 2014 to 2016 and Rs. 6600/­ per month from April
2016 onwards to the respondent herein and three minor children who
are in care and custody of respondent Preeti @ Pinki. The same by no
stretch of imagination can be termed as exorbitant or excessive, in view
of the position of the parties to the petition.  

35.    In a case titled  “Manmohan Kohli vs. Natasha Kohli”

bearing  C.M.(M)   No.1019/2010  ;   decided   on  06.02.2013    by   Hon’ble
High   Court   while   laying   down   list   of   some   of   the   factors   which   are
required to be considered, it has been held that at this stage, court has
to guess the income of the spouses, to arrive at a figure for grant of
interim maintenance.

36.   In the present case, on the basis of material on record, I do

not  see   that   the   guess   work   of   Ld.   Trial   Court,   was   in   anyway

arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. Consequently, I do not find any merits

in this appeal calling for any interference in the  impugned order dated
22.09.2016, passed by Ld.Trial Court. 

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017
In the matter of :-

Crl. Appeal No. : 28/2017
[Deen Dayal vs. Preeti @ Pinki]
Dated : 02.03.2017

37.   Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

38.    Before parting with this order, I wish to add that nothing

mentioned hereinabove, shall tantamount to any expression on merits
of the case, as the same have been observed only for disposal of the
present appeal.

39.   The   Trial   Court   record   along   with   copy   of   this   order   be
sent to the concerned Court. 

40.   The appeal file be consigned to Record Room.  

Announced in open court of
2nd day of March, 2017.

                             (KANWAL JEET ARORA)
                     ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE­03,
                                                       NEW DELHI.                    

  Crl.Appeal No.: 28/2017

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation