Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 287 of 2024
CNR No.DLCT01-010345-2024
In The Matter Of:
Abhishek Jain S/o Sumat Prasad Jain,
Present address at: S-9, 2nd Floor,
C-32, Gali no. 16, Hindon Vihar, Noida,
UP 201301.
…………….………..Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Ruchika Jain W/o Sh. Abhishek Jain
R/o 123, Nilgiri Apartmen, Sector 9,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
2. Smt. Raj Bala Jain W/o Sumat Prasad Jain,
Permanent R/o H. NO. 2972, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate,
Delhi-110006.
Presently At :
Flat no. 1007, Block A, Rishab Paradise,
Cloud 9, Ahimsa Khand-II, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Sh. Sumat Prasad Jain S/o Late Sh. M.P. Jain,
Permanent R/o H. no. 2972, Ram Bazar,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
Presently at:-
Flat no. 1007, Block-A,
Rishab Paradise, Cloud 9, Ahimsa Khand-II, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, UP.
……….……………Respondents
Instituted on : 16.07.2024
Reserved on : 24.03.2026
-- 1 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
Pronounced on :06.06.2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 195 of 2024
CNR No.DLCT01-007478-2024
In The Matter Of:
Smt. Ruchika Jain D/o Late Adesh Kumar Jain
R/o 46, Gulab Vihar Apartment, Sector 9,
Rohini, Delhi.
…………….………..Appellant
Versus
1. Abhishek Jain S/o Sumat Prasad Jain,
Present address at: S-9, 2nd Floor, C-32, Gali no. 16, Hindon Vihar,
Noida, UP 201301.
2. Smt. Raj Bala Jain W/o Sumat Prasad Jain,
Permanent R/o H. NO. 2972, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate,
Delhi-110006.
Presently At :
Flat no. 1007, Block A, Rishab Paradise,
Cloud 9, Ahimsa Khand-II, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Sh. Sumat Prasad Jain S/o Late Sh. M.P. Jain,
Permanent R/o H. no. 2972, Ram Bazar,
Mori Gate, Delhi.
Presently at:-
Flat no. 1007, Block-A,
Rishab Paradise, Cloud 9, Ahimsa Khand-II, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, UP.
4. Shivani Jain D/o Mr. Sumat Prasad Jain
R/o D-8, Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
……….……………Respondents
Instituted on : 09.08.2024
-- 2 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
Reserved on : 24.03.2026
Pronounced on : 06.06.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off the instant two cross
appeals filed by the parties, challenging the order dated 20.04.2024,
passed by the Ld. MM-03(Mahila Court), Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, in Ct Cases No. 373/2019 titled as ‘Ruchika Jain Vs.
Abhishek Jain & Ors’ filed under provisions of Domestic Violence
Act. The complaint was filed by Ruchika Jain i.e. complainant/wife
against respondent/Sh. Abhishek Jain i.e. her husband & Ors. before the
ld. Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred
as per their respective status before Ld. Trial Court.
2. Vide impugned order, Ld Trial Court while assessing the monthly
income of appellant/husband @ Rs. 1.17 lac, awarded interim
maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month in favour of minor child against
the respondent/husband from the date of filing of the petition till January
2021 and a sum of Rs. 14,000/- per month from February 2021 with
onward increment of 5% per annum, till the disposal of the petition,
while it did not award any maintenance in favour of the
complainant/wife.
3. Brief facts of the case as is culled out from the impugned order dated
20.04.2024:-
“3. The briefly stated facts of the present case as per the
complainant is that the marriage between her and respondent no. 1
got solemnized on 05.10.2008 accordingly to Hindu rites at
Community Center, Rohini, Delhi and one female child, namely,
Anupreksha Jain was born out of this wedlock. It has been further
-- 3 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
alleged that family members of the complainant spent about Rs. 10
lacs on the marriage and thereafter, she joined her matrimonial
home and started living there with respondent no. 1 at H. no. 2972,
Ram Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi-110064 and the entire jewellery of the
complainant given by her parents and in-laws are in the custody of
respondent no. 1, 2 and 4. It has been alleged that from day one,
after the marriage, respondents started abusing and taunting the
complainant for bringing insufficient dowry & also gave beatings to
eher for the same reason. After 7-8 days of marriage, the
respondents no. , 3 and 4 took all the jewellery, cash and stridhan
from the complainant on the pretext of keeping the same in the safe
locker and till date they did not return the same despite demanding
the same. It is further alleged that soon after marriage, respondent
no. 3 used to make the complainant sit in his room for hours on the
pretext of learning computers and respondent no. 3 tried to touch
her inappropriately and when the complainant objected to it the
respondent no. 3 started abusing the complainant. When the
complaiannt reported the same to respondent no. 1, he ignored and
told her to obey his command. Respondent no. 3 used to stare the
complainant in very different manner and also make indecent
gestures whenever the complainant objected to his acts of urinating
in the open train and respondent no. 1 and 2 always abused the
complainant in filthy language……………...”
4. Complainant is stated to be residing separately from the
respondent/husband and sustaining herself with great hardship and
attending to the requirements of her minor daughter single handedly
Complaint under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 seeking various reliefs was filed against the
respondent. Alongwith the complaint, an application for grant of
interim maintenance was also filed which was disposed of vide the
impugned order.
5. Appeal no. 287 of 2024 has been preferred by the respondent/
husband Abhishek Jain seeking setting aside of impugned order and
has assailed the same on the grounds which can be summarized as
under:-
-- 4 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
(a) Because the the ld. MM has wrongly come to the conclusion in
impugned order dated 20.04.2024 that allegations of economic
abuses are there from the allegations. In the entire set of pleadings,
no such allegations are made out against the appellant much less
prima facie sina-qua-non for maintaining application seeking
interim monetary relief including maintenance. The ld. MM wrongly
ignored the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in
Vijayanand Datta Ram Naik Vs. Vishranti Vijayanand Nair dated
13.02.2019. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
Criminal Writ Appeal no. 32/2014 titled “Koushik Vs. Sau-Sangeeta
Koushik Gharami” and of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Sangita
Saha Vs. Abhijeet Saha 2019(3) JCC 3088 in this concern.
(b) Because the ld. MM failed to appreciate that the Respondent no. 1
herself has deserted the matrimonial ties and deprived the appellant
of the child of her own wrong doings and despite repeated requests
in this regard, had failed to join the company of appellant along
with the child. Accordingly, Respondent no. 1 cannot be allowed to
be benefited of her own wrong doings and as such, cannot be
awarded maintenance for the child, in her hands.
(c) Because the ld. MM failed to appreciate that the expenses of Baby
Anupreksha under the permissible heads of food, clothing,
residence, medical expenses, education in terms of Hon’ble Supreme
Court Judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha comes to Rs. 12,500/-, out of
which, as per the equal share of appellant and Respondent no. 1, a
sum of Rs. 6,250/- is to be paid by the appellant.
(d) Because the ld. MM failed to appreciate that by concealing the
material evidences and incomes of Respondent no. 1 in the form of
saving bank account of State Bank of India, she is not entitled for
any maintenance even for the child in her own hands as she has
played fraud not only against the appellant but also against the ld.
Trial Court.
(e) Because the ld.MM failed to appreciate that to balance the equities
and to balance and to work out harmonious construction between
the two sets of arguments i.e. “Respondent no. 1 cannot be allowed
to be benefited of her own wrong as she only had deserted Baby
Anupreksha from the Appellant” and “maintenance of the child is to
be shared by the appellant”, “Respondent no. 1 has full capacity to
maintain the child”, “Respondent no. 1 has concealed the material
evidences and documents and thus played fraud” and “Respondent
no.1 is not allowing the child to meet the appellant father despite
orders in this regard”, instead of payment of child maintenance in
the hands of Respondent no. 1, the same should be directed to be
deposited by the appellant in some saving schemes in the name of
child with withdrawals to be done with the permission of the Court
that too for any paramount interest of the child and for no other
-- 5 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
purposes and the details of such expenditure must be furnished to
the court while asking for the permission of the withdrawal.
(f)Because the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the correct versions of
the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Anju Vs. rinku Dahiya
Mat. App (FC) 78/23, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmja Sharama
Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma AIR 2000 (SC) 1398 and Rajnesh Vs. Neha
2021 (2) SC 324, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in FAMILY COURT
APPEAL No. 23/2017 titled as Ghanshyam S/o Yashwant Rangari
Vs. Ku. Apoorva vide judgment dated 20 April, 2018 with respect to
the payment of child maintenance and sharing of the said
maintenance equally between both the earning parents.
(g) Because the Ld. MM while rightly came to the conclusion that child
being the joint responsibility of both the earning parent, failed to
give any basis in respect of the payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month
and Rs. 14,000/- per month to the child on sharing basis by the
appellant. Ld. MM had ignored the income affidavit of the
respondent no. 1 showing the justified expenditure of the child to be
Rs. 12,500/- per month only that too as per the last income affidavit
dated 02.08.2022 read with income affidavit dated 25.07.2022 and
justified expenditure of less than Rs. 7,000/- as per earlier Income
affidavits ated 20.09.2019, Income affidavit dated 04.01.2021 and
income affidavit dated 13.01.2021.
(h) Because the ld. MM has wrongly come to the conclusion that the
expenditure of appellant has to be ignored while granting interim
maintenance. The same findings are contrary to the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha.
6. Appeal no.195 of 2024 has been preferred by the complainant / wife
Ruchika Jain seeking enhancement of interim maintenance. The
complainant has assailed the impugned order on various grounds
which can be summarized as under:-
(a)Because the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned
order is against the settled principles of law as explained by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(b) Because the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate correct facts and
circumstances of the present case and passed the impugned order in
favor of daughter only and not the appellant thereby partially
allowing the application u/s 23 of DV Act.
(c)Because the ld. Trial Court did not appropriately apprecaite the facts
and circumstances the appellant raised with regards to the expenses
incurred for several years by the appellant upon the respondents.
(d) Because the ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that earlier, the
-- 6 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
respondent no. 2 & 3 filed eviction petition against the appellant and
later filed visitation/ custody application u/s 21 of DV Act for the
daughter even knowing the fact that they evicted the
mother(Appellant ) and daughter from the house which depicts their
malafide intentions in the present case.
(e)Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to take into account the essential
needs of the wife/ Appellant and did not adequately considered the
income affidavit submitted by the appellant.
(f) Because the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the affidavit of
additional Expenditure dated 09.08.2022 while passing the
impugned order.
(g) Because the ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that the
Hon’ble High Court provided Rs. 25,000/- per month as
maintenance charges of the child and her the ld. MM awarded only
Rs. 14,000/- per month, which is in the interest of justice for child,
as per the growing necessities of the child.
(h) Because the Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that such an
amount of maintenance is not sufficient for child in case of food,
clothing, rent, medical expenses and other which are very basic
necessities of a person also, did not provided any monetary relief for
the appellant to maintain herself.
(i) Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to provide any relief concerning
residential accommodation to the appellant.
(j)Because the ld. Trial Court did not consider the income affidavit
dated 13.01.2021 filed by the appellant as per the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajmesh Vs. Neha.
7. Both parties have argued on the lines of ground as taken in the
instant appeals.
8. I have heard arguments and perused the record.
9. At the outset, I may observe that the parties are ad idem regarding
factum of marriage between them. The complainant/ wife has alleged
that she was subjected to domestic violence by appellant. However,
same has been denied by respondent. It is a settled law that serious
disputed question of facts (requiring evidence) cannot be gone into at the
time of deciding an application for grant of interim maintenance as the
same can only be decided during course of trial after parties lead their
-- 7 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
respective evidence. Since the complainant/ wife has made allegations
of, she being subjected to domestic violence by respondent/husband, a
prima-facie case for domestic violence is made out in the instant case.
Therefore, the observation of Ld Trial Court on this count cannot be
faulted with.
10.Before considering respective contentions of parties, I may mention here
that while fixing an interim maintenance, Court has to take a prima-facie
view of the matter and need not to critically examine the respective
claims of the parties regarding their respective incomes and assets
because for deciding the same the evidence would be required. But, at
the same time, an aggrieved person cannot be rendered to lead a life of a
destitute till completion of trial. It is also pertinent to note here that as
per the dictionary meaning of the word 'maintenance', it includes all such
means of living as would enable one to live in the degree of comfort,
suitable and becoming to his situation of life. It is said to include
anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health, proper
recreation, vacation, traveling expenses or other proper cognate
purposes. For computing the maintenance, the following test have
been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs.
District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 7, wherein it has been
observed that:-
"No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of
maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for
leverage can, however, be always there. The Court has to
consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the
capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those
he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary
-- 8 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed
for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable
comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was
used to when she lived with her husband and also that she
does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At
the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or
extortionate."
11.Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr,
Crl. Appeal No. 730/2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9503/2018),
dated 04.11.2020 has held as under :-
Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution
or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket
formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are
the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and
professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the income is
sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of
living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home;
whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
whether she was working during the subsistence of the
marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her
employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child
rearing, and looking after adult members of the family;
reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain, this Court held that the
financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would
not be material while determining the quantum of
maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on
the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim
has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support.
It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is
educated and could support herself. The Court must take into
consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the
spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent
upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for
maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his
-- 9 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
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.
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 maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and
realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e.
maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for
the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the
wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be
adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with
reasonable comfort”
12.Further, the Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde,
140 (2007) DLT 16, laid down the following factors to be considered
for determining maintenance :
Status of the parties.
Reasonable wants of the claimant.
The independent income and property of the claimant.
The number of persons, the non-applicant has to
maintain.
The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar
lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical
attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the
income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct
sources are not disclosed.
The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
-- 10 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the
amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17.
13.Now coming to the legality of interim maintenance.
14.The complainant/ wife is stated to be employed as a teacher and, as per
her income affidavit, is earning approximately Rs.60,637/- per
month(stated to be Rs. 67,624/- per month by the respondent/ husband,
as per the impugned order). The Respondent/Husband's net monthly
income has been assessed by the Learned Trial Court at approximately
Rs.1,17,000/- per month. The parties have one minor daughter who is
presently residing with the complainant/ wife.
15.The first issue requiring consideration is whether the complainant/ wife
is entitled to interim maintenance in her own favour.
16.It is not in dispute that the complainant/ wife is a qualified teacher,
employed in a prominent school of Delhi and is earning approximately
Rs.60,637/- per month. Though the respondent/ husband's income is
higher, the complainant/ wife cannot be said to be without means of
sustenance. The object of maintenance proceedings is to ensure that a
spouse is not reduced to destitution and is able to maintain herself with
dignity. Where the spouse is educated, gainfully employed and earning a
substantial and regular income, grant of interim maintenance is not an
automatic consequence merely because the other spouse earns more.
17.At the present stage, no material has been placed on record to show that
despite earning more than Rs.60,000/- per month, the complainant/ wife
is unable to maintain herself or meet her personal needs. The Ld. Trial
Court was therefore justified in declining interim maintenance to the
wife. This Court finds no infirmity in the said conclusion.
18.Accordingly, the contention on behalf of by the Complainant/wife to the
-- 11 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
denial of maintenance in her own favour is without merit and is liable to
be rejected.
19.The next issue concerns maintenance awarded towards the minor
daughter.
20.It is well settled that the obligation to maintain a minor child is a joint
obligation of both parents. Merely because the child is residing with one
parent does not absolve the other parent of the responsibility to
contribute towards her upbringing. Equally, where both parents are
earning, the entire financial burden cannot ordinarily be viewed as
resting exclusively upon one parent.
21.In the present case, the husband earns approximately Rs.1,17,000/- per
month whereas the wife earns approximately Rs.60,637/- per month.
Thus, both parties possess independent earning capacity, though the
respondent/ husband's income is substantially higher.
22.This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant/ wife is
the custodial parent. Apart from any financial contribution made by her,
she is contributing towards the upbringing of the child through day-to-
day care, supervision, emotional support, management of educational
and medical needs and other responsibilities which are incapable of
precise monetary computation. Such contribution is a relevant
consideration while assessing the respective obligations of the parties.
23.The expenditure statement furnished by the Complainant/wife includes
various heads of expenses. The Respondent/Husband has specifically
disputed the amount claimed towards food and has argued that several
heads of expenditure are vague and excessive. A perusal of the record
reveals that certain expenses claimed by the Complainant/wife may
-- 12 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
indeed require proof and detailed examination during the course of trial.
However, interim maintenance proceedings are not intended to become a
minute accounting exercise requiring exact proof of every item of
expenditure.
24.The Court is required to arrive at a broad and realistic assessment
keeping in view the age and needs of the child, the social and economic
status of the parties and their respective earning capacities. The needs of
a growing child are not confined merely to school fees and include food,
clothing, healthcare, transportation, educational material, recreational
activities and other incidental expenses necessary for her proper
development.
25.The contention of the Respondent/husband that his contribution should
be apportioned strictly in proportion to the salaries of the parties also
does not merit acceptance in its rigid form. While both parents are
undoubtedly required to contribute towards the child's maintenance, the
contribution need not always be mathematically proportionate. The
custodial parent already contributes through continuous care and
supervision. Consequently, a somewhat larger financial contribution
from the non-custodial parent, particularly where his income is
substantially higher, cannot be regarded as unreasonable.
26.Having regard to the income of the parties, the needs of the child and the
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition
till January 2021 and amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month with an
increment of 5% per annum since February 2021 till disposal of the
petition, awarded by the Ld. Trial Court towards the child cannot be said
-- 13 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
to be excessive, arbitrary or disproportionate. At the same time, the
material presently available does not justify enhancement of the said
amount as sought by the complainant/ wife.
27.The submission on behalf of the Respondent/Husband that the
maintenance amount should be retained in fixed deposits for the future
benefit of the child is also devoid of merit. Maintenance is intended to
meet the present and recurring needs of the child. Directing the entire
amount to remain invested would defeat the very purpose for which such
maintenance is awarded. The amount is therefore liable to be utilized
towards the current welfare and upbringing of the child.
28.Further, the grievance of the Respondent/husband regarding denial of
visitation or access to the child pertains to an independent cause of
action. The right of a child to receive maintenance cannot be made
dependent upon the outcome of custody or visitation disputes between
the parents. Such issues are required to be adjudicated in appropriate
proceedings and do not furnish a ground to interfere with the impugned
order.
29.Likewise, the allegations regarding concealment of savings, investments
or other assets by the wife raise disputed questions of fact. Whether any
material fact has been suppressed can only be determined upon proper
examination of evidence. At this stage, no conclusive finding can be
recorded in that regard. Consequently, the prayer on behalf of the
Respondent/Husband seeking initiation of penal action on account of
such alleged concealment is premature and is declined, without
prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the parties in
accordance with law after appropriate adjudication.
-- 14 of 15 --
CA no. 287/2024 Abhishek Jain Vs. Ruchika Jain & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 15
CA no. 195/2024 Ruchika Jain vs. Abhishek Jain & Ors.
30.Upon consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court
finds no illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order. The
Ld. Trial Court has adopted a balanced approach by declining
maintenance to the gainfully employed complainant/ wife while securing
the welfare of the minor child through an award of reasonable interim
maintenance.
31.Accordingly, the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-
per month from the date of filing of the petition till January 2021 and of
Rs. 14,000/- per month with an increment of 5% per annum since
February 2021 till disposal of the petition in favour of the minor
daughter and declining maintenance to the complainant/ wife is hereby
affirmed.
32.As such, in view of the above observations and discussions, both the
appeals stand disposed of as dismissed.
33.Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this order.
Announced in the open Court
(Order contains 15 pages)
(Bhupinder Singh)
ASJ-05, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
06.06.2026
-- 15 of 15 --