Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CA 91/2024
AMIT AGGARWAL Vs. ANCHAL AGGARWAL
PS Model Town
14.10.2024
Present: Ms. Shreya, ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Chirag Khurana, ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Arguments have already been heard in the present
matter.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the
impugned order dated 20.04.2024 passed by Ld. Mahila Court.
2. From the record, it transpires that Ld. Family Court vide
order dated 07.10.2023 had awarded interim maintenance to the
respondent herein to the tune of Rs.80,000/- per month for herself
and minor child.
3. Admittedly, the said order dated 07.10.2023 of Ld.
Family Court is under challenge before Hon’ble High Court by both
the parties in Crl. No. 1366/2023 and Crl. Rev. P. 1127 vide order
dated 01.03.2024, the Hon’ble High Court had deferred the hearing
of execution petition filed by the respondent Aanchal to a date after
the date fixed by the Hon’ble High Court. The said interim order
was extended by Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 22.03.2024.
4. For the sake of clarity, it is mentioned at the outset that
the order of Ld. Mahila Court has not been challenged by the
parties before the Hon’ble High Court.
The factum of marriage between the parties is not
CA No. 91/2024
Amit Aggarwal Vs. Anchal Aggarwal
Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
disputed and also that out of the said wedlock, a child was born,
who is presently in the custody of respondent/complainant (in the
main case). The present appeal involves legal technical question
whether ld. Mahila Court could have modified the order dated
18.12.2023 or not.
5. It was argued by ld. Counsel for the appellant that Ld.
Mahila Court erred in considering the crucial fact that the
application filed by the respondent, aimed at modifying the order
dated 20.04.2024 issued by Ld. Mahila Court to procure a
differential amount of maintenance, lacks legal standing. This is
due to the disposition of the application under Section 23(2) of
Domestic Violence Act by the Ld. Mahila Court on 18.12.2023. By
disposing off the application, the Mahila Court effectively settled
the matter related to maintenance obligations. Consequently, any
subsequent attempt to alter the maintenance order is deemed non-
maintainable. As it contravenes the prior judicial determination
under the Domestic Violence Act.
That Ld. Mahila Court erred in failing to acknowledge
that its prior order, issued on 18.12.2023, had already relied upon a
monthly maintenance sum of Rs,80,000/- in favour of the
respondent and the minor child decided by the Ld. Family Court.
Consequently, the respondent is precluded from seeking a further
augmentation of the maintenance quantum.
On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent
submits that there is no error in the impugned order dated
20.04.2024. As such the differential amount of maintenance has
already been paid and the present appeal is as such now
CA No. 91/2024
Amit Aggarwal Vs. Anchal Aggarwal
Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
infructuous.
6. The main line of argument was that the ld. Trial Court
had no powers to modify its order dated 18.12.2023, whereby the
interim maintenance application had already been disposed off.
7. A perusal of the record reflects that the Ld. Family
Court, vide order dated 07.10.2023 had directed respondent no.1
(appellant herein) to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the
complainant (respondent herein) from the date of filing of petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 17.05.2023 till further orders/during
the pendency of the petition. The Ld. Mahila Court vide order dated
18.12.2023 observed that the complainant is not entitled to
enhanced quantum of maintenance than Rs.80,000/- per month and
since interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.80,000/- has already
been awarded in favour of the complainant and her minor child by
the Ld. Family Court, there were no grounds for Ld. Mahila Court
to pass further/separate order for maintenance. No separate
quantum of maintenance was awarded by Ld. Mahila Court in view
of the order of Ld. Family Court.
8. From the impugned order dated 20.04.2024, it transpires
that Ld. Trial Court has merely clarified that the amount of
Rs.80,000/- is to be paid w.e.f. filing of DV petition. The DV
petition had admittedly been filed on 27.03.2023 and the Ld.
Family Court petition was filed on 17.05.2023. Although, ld.
Mahila Court has not awarded any specific separate maintenance as
Ld. Family Court had already awarded the interim maintenance of
CA No. 91/2024
Amit Aggarwal Vs. Anchal Aggarwal
Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
Rs.80,000/- per month, ld. Mahila Court vide the impugned order
dated 20.04.2024 merely clarifying that the said amount of
maintenance is to be paid to the complainant from the date of filing
of DV petition, which is in accordance with law. However
admittedly, differential amount has already been paid by the
appellant to the respondent. As such, the order of the Ld. Family
Court is under challenge before Hon’ble High Court and no
findings regarding quantum of maintenance awarded is being given
by this Court. There is no apparent error in the order of Ld. Mahila
Court dated 20.04.2024. Thus, no further intervention by this Court
is called for at this stage and there is no illegality and infirmity in
the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 and the same is upheld.
9. The appeal is dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
10. Trial Court Record, if any, be sent back along with copy
of this order.
11. The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
(Shefali Sharma)
Addl. Sessions Judge-02(North)
Rohini Courts Delhi
14.10.2024
CA No. 91/2024
Amit Aggarwal Vs. Anchal Aggarwal
Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --