Murli Manohar Sahay v. Meghna Sahay

AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2024

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02nd September, 2024 + CRL.REV.P. 239/2023 & CRL.M.A. 6271/2023, CRL.M.A. 6272/2023, CRL.M.A. 15421/2023 MURLI MANOHAR SAHAY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shahid Azad, Adv. (through VC) versus MEGHNA SAHAY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manindra Dubey, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 24.11.2022 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CA No. 95/2021 titled Murli Manohar Sahay vs. Meghna Sahay. 2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Mahila Court, Saket whereby the learned MM had directed the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance for a sum of ₹10,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filling of the application till the pendency of the main application. 3. The learned ASJ noted that in the complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act'), specific allegations of economic and physical abuse have been made against the petitioner. It was noted that the averment of the petitioner that no domestic violence of any kind, be it physical, emotional or economic was inflicted on the respondent, is a matter of trial. It was further noted that the learned predecessor ASJ vide order dated 23.01.2020 had also observed that the respondent had alleged that she and her minor child were not taken care of by the petitioner. Further, the learned predecessor ASJ also noted that the issue regarding the respondent not having any reasonable cause not to live with the petitioner despite there being a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was a matter of trial, and cannot be made a ground to decline interim maintenance to the respondent. 4. The learned ASJ also took into consideration a TDS certificate of the respondent filed by the petitioner showing that an amount of ₹8.68/- towards total transaction of ₹867.62 from 28.02.2022 to 31.03.2022 was deducted. It was noted that the said document did not prima facie establish that the respondent is a working woman earning a handsome amount. It was noted that nothing was placed on record to corroborate the contention of the petitioner that TDS is deducted when the income is above ₹5,00,000/-. The learned ASJ, thus, noting that the petitioner had not challenged the assessment of his monthly income as ₹55,000/- by the learned Trial Court, and the calculation of the quantum of interim maintenance by the learned Trial Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with cost of ₹10,000/- . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned ASJ erred in upholding the order of the learned MM granting interim maintenance to the tune of ₹10,000/- per month to the respondent. He submits that there is no material on record to prima facie show that any form of domestic violence was meted out to the respondent. He submits that the respondent, without any reason, has herself left the company of the petitioner and refuses to reside with him despite there being a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner. He submits that the respondent herself has not given any reason for not working. He submits that the respondent is well educated, and is capable of maintaining herself. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is not presently in a position to earn. He submits that the fact that prior to her marriage, the respondent was in a position to earn, has no bearing on the claim of maintenance at this stage. He submits that the petitioner had failed to take care of the respondent, and is only putting forth the argument of having a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour to evade his liability to pay interim mainten