Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS TWINKLE WADHWA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Revision No. 85/2026
Noor Aalam @ Aalam
S/o Mehraj
R/o Gram Chirauri
Tehsil Loni, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201102 ...Revisionist
Versus
Ishrat
W/o Sh. Noor Aalam @ Aalam
R/o H. No. B-22, Gali No. 3, Amar Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi ...Respondent
Date of assignment : 21.07.2026
Date of Arguments : 27.07.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2026
Conclusion : Revision Dismissed
Order on Revision
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the
revisionist/husband under Section 29 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, challenging the order dated
25.05.2026 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby ad-interim
maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month was granted in favour of
the respondent/wife.
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 1 page of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
2. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the
marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was
solemnized as per Muslim rites and ceremonies on 17.12.2022
at Karawal Nagar, Delhi, in the presence of friends and relatives.
It is the case of the respondent that her parents incurred
substantial expenditure at the time of the marriage. It is further
alleged that soon after the marriage, demands for dowry were
raised by the revisionist and his family members, and that the
respondent was subjected to repeated harassment and cruelty by
them, the details whereof are set out in the complaint filed by her
before the Ld. Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent
instituted a complaint under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and other
reliefs available thereunder. It is stated that other proceedings
between the parties are also pending.
3. By the impugned order dated 25.05.2026, the Ld. Trial
Court granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month
in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the
revisionist/husband has preferred the present revision.
GROUNDS OF REVISION AND ARGUMENTS
4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has assailed the
impugned order primarily on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court,
while granting ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/-, failed
to record any finding on the financial capacity of the revisionist,
which is stated to be a mandatory requirement in law for
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 2 page of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
determination of the quantum of maintenance.
5. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for the
revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
revisionist has since remarried according to Muslim rites
and ceremonies, and that he is presently unable to work on
account of a fracture sustained in his hand, allegedly caused by
beatings administered to him on 15.04.2026 by the respondent
and her family members. It is stated that the revisionist presently
resides in rented accommodation with his second wife, is
undergoing medical treatment for the said injury, and is
dependent upon his neighbors for food and other basic
necessities. It is further contended that, on account of the said
injury, the revisionist is rendered unfit to work as a driver, which
was his source of livelihood. It is also submitted that the
revisionist remains willing to keep the respondent with him in the
matrimonial home, but that the respondent is unwilling to reside
with him.
6. It is further submitted that the respondent is gainfully
employed as an Aaya in a private school, earning approximately
Rs. 2,000/- per month, and additionally earns approximately Rs.
15,000/- per month from work at a beauty parlour and from
sewing, embroidery, and piko work, thereby earning a
cumulative sum of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month. It is
contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to take these facts into
consideration while passing the impugned order.
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 3 page of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
FINDINGS
7. I have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and have
perused the record with care.
8. At the outset, it must be noted that the impugned order
dated 25.05.2026 is only an ad- interim order of maintenance.
Such orders are, by their very nature, tentative and are passed on
a prima facie assessment of the material available on record,
pending final adjudication of the application. The Ld. Trial
Court, while passing the said order, took into account
the revisionist own admission before it that he earns Rs. 15,000/-
per month. The grant of Rs. 6,000/- per month as ad-interim
maintenance, being well within and indeed considerably less than
the revisionist admitted income, cannot, on the face of it, be said
to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
9. The contention that the revisionist is unable to work owing
to a fracture said to have been sustained on 15.04.2026 does not
inspire confidence, inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the
revisionist solemnized his second marriage after the said incident
on 15.04.2026. A person who claims to be incapacitated to the
extent of being unable to earn a livelihood, and dependent on the
charity of neighbours for basic sustenance, would ordinarily not
be in a position to undertake a second marriage within so short a
span. This inconsistency materially undermines the credibility of
the revisionist plea of incapacity.
10. Similarly, the assertion that the revisionist is dependent
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 4 page of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
upon his neighbours for food and other necessities appears, in the
facts and circumstances noted above, to be an exaggerated and
unsubstantiated averment, made with a view to understate rather
than reflecting the true financial status.
11. It would also be reasonable to infer that a person ordinarily
does not enter into a marriage without any means of livelihood or
income to support the same. It is well settled, and a matter of
common judicial experience, that in matrimonial and
maintenance proceedings, husbands not infrequently understate
or suppress their true income. The revisionist conduct, viewed
cumulatively, is consistent with such a tendency.
12. Further, perusal of complaint dated 18.04.2026 filed by
revisionist before SHO, Ghaziabad shows that he has mentioned
when his second marriage was solemnized, respondent came
there and snatched gold and silver jewellery. This shows the
status of revisionist, a person who does not have money to eat
cannot afford gold/silver ornaments in his second marriage.
13. The admission made by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial
Court that his income is Rs. 15,000/- per month cannot be read as
an admission that his income is limited only to that sum. The true
extent of his income and financial capacity remains a matter to
be conclusively determined at trial, upon appreciation of
evidence led by the parties. At the ad-interim stage, however, the
Ld. Trial Court was justified in proceeding on the basis of the
revisionist own admitted income.
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 5 page of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
14. As regards the contention that the respondent is herself
earning an income, it is settled law that mere earning of some
income by the wife does not, by itself, disentitle her
to maintenance, particularly where such income is insufficient to
maintain her in a manner reasonably commensurate with the
status of the parties. The revisionist has not placed on record any
material to establish that the respondent's earnings, even as
claimed by him, are sufficient to render her self-sufficient so as
to disentitle her to any maintenance whatsoever. This ground,
therefore, does not assist the revisionist at the ad-interim stage.
15. Having regard to the Minimum Wages Act and the rates
notified thereunder for the National Capital Territory of Delhi,
the amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month awarded as ad- interim
maintenance cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary, or
unsustainable, particularly when tested against the revisionist
own admitted income of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court findd no illegality,
perversity, or infirmity in the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by
the Ld. Trial Court warranting interference by this Court at the
ad- interim stage. It is, however, clarified that the observations
made herein are confined to the limited purpose of deciding the
present revision against the ad-interim order, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case,
which shall be decided by the Ld. Trial Court uninfluenced by
any observations made herein, on the basis of evidence led by the
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 6 page of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
parties.
ORDER
17. In view of the above discussion and findings, the present
revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The order
dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld.
The Ld. Trial Court is directed to proceed with and conclude the
main application expeditiously, in accordance with law.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for
information and compliance.
Announced in open court (TWINKLE WADHWA)
today on 28.07.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02
(NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Crl. Rev. No. 85/2026 Noor Aalam @ Aalam Vs Ishrat 7 page of 7
-- 7 of 7 --