Delhi District Court
Aakanksha Anand vs Vineet Anand on 29 August, 2019 IN THE COURT OF SH. HARISH KUMAR : ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE 03 : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Criminal Appeal No. 190/2018 CNR No.: DLNW010134392018 IN THE MATTER OF: Aakanksha Anand
W/o Sh. Vineet Anand
Presently R/o H.No. 83, First Floor,
Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura,
New Delhi110 034 …… Appellant VERSUS 1. Vineet Anand S/o Sh. K.K. Anand R/o E4/28, Sector11, Rohini, Delhi 2. Mr. Kiran Kumar Anand 3. Smt. Bhawna Anand W/o Mr. Kiran Anand 4. Ms. Kritika Anand D/o Mr. Kiran Anand All R/o H.No. 15B18B, Khukhrain Apartments, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi110 085 ….. Respondents Date of Institution of present CA : 15.12.2018
Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.07.2019
Date of judgement : 29.08.2019 Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 1 of 51 AND Criminal Appeal No. 10/2019 CNR No.: DLNW010005192019 IN THE MATTER OF: Vineet Anand
S/o Sh. K.K. Anand
R/o B6/131, Sector07,
Rohini, Delhi …… Appellant VERSUS 1. Aakanksha Anand D/o Mr. Chander Mangat Maini R/o H.No. 83, First Floor, Sainik Vihar, New Delhi110 034 2. The State ….. Respondents Date of Institution of present CA : 16.01.2019
Date of conclusion of arguments : 16.07.2019
Date of judgement : 29.08.2019 JUDGEMENT
1. This common judgement shall dispose of two appeals
filed under Section 29 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 aggrieved from the order dt 29.11.2018. Appeal bearing No.
190/2018 has been filed by the aggrieved person Aakanksha Anand
against the grant of inadequate interim maintenance whereas appeal Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 2 of 51 bearing no. 261/2019 has been filed by Vineet Anand against awarding
of interim maintenance to Aakanksha Anand and her child.
2. In this judgement both appellants of their respective
appeals have been referred to by their respective personal name and
the term “respondent No. 2, 3 and 4” shall mean “Respondent No. 2, 3
and 4” i.e. Mr Kiran Kumar Anand, Mrs. Bhawna and Ms Kritika
Anand respectively. The term “respondents” would include Vineet
Anand as well as respondent No. 2, 3 and 4.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Aakanksha
Anand is the wife Vineet Anand and the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 are
fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw respectively of
Aakanksha Anand. Respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 were respondents No.
2, 3 and 4 even before the Trial Court. Aakanksha Anand was married
to Vineet Anand according to Hindu Customs and ceremonies on
23.01.2013. One daughter baby Saanvika was born from this wedlock
on 28.04.2014. Aakanksha Anand gave a complaint to CAW Cell, Rani
Bagh, Delhi against the respondents wherein she had alleged torture
by the respondents on account of dowry so FIR No. 44/2018 under
Section 498A/406 IPC was registered at PS Rani Bagh. Thereafter, the
appellant filed a application under Section 12 of DV Act wherein she
also filed an application under Section 23 of DV Act for interim
maintenance. Vide application under Section 23 of the Domestic
Violence Act Aakanksha Anand had prayed for interim maintenance
of Rs.3 lacs per month for herself and her minor daughter, apart from
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 3 of 51
4. Vide impugned order dt. 29.11.2018 said application
was disposed of granting monetary relief of Rs 50,000/ pm to
Aakanksha Anand for herself and her daughter Saanvika Anand. As
noted both Aakanksha Anand and Vinee Anand are aggrieved and
have filed their respective appeals.
5. Aakanksha Anand preferred to file the appeal No.
190/2018 on the following grounds:
1. That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order mechanically without taking into consideration the proposition of law to be applicable at the time of awarding maintenance and did not take into consideration relevant documents filed by Aakanksha Anand besides the facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondents no. 2 to 4 in the written statement have specifically stated that they were paying Rs.50,000/ per month to Aakanksha Anand even before the birth of minor daughter and this amount was exclusive of expenses for residence, food, clothing and other miscellaneous expenses. Thus, the most important document has been overlooked by the Ld. Trial Court in which there was clear admission on the part of the respondents that before the birth of the minor daughter of Aakanksha Anand, an amount of Rs.50,000/ per month used to be given to Aakanksha Anand. Therefore, the grant of interim maintenance to the tune of the same amount by the Ld. Trial Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 4 of 51 Court to Aakanksha Anand is totally erroneous and contrary to the facts on record in the form of document.
3. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the birth of minor child as well as the enormous amount of expenses incurred for bringing up and taking care of the child are manifold and with the passage of time, the same shoot up as they are not static including expenses for schooling, medical, clothing, toys, books etc. These important consideration in respect of well being of Aakanksha Anand as well as her minor daughter have been not taken care or evaluated by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order.
4. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondents herein in their respective written statements have not disputed or denied about the movable and immovable properties which belongs to them as detailed in the application under Section 23 of the Act. It is further submitted that the respondents have not disputed the ownership of 22 property approximately of commercial and residential nature including factories, residential properties, rental properties and further more the rental income of the respondents being to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/ per month approximately besides the income from industrial business being carried out by Vineed Anand respondents no. 2 which to the rough estimate of Aakanksha Anand is running into Rs.10 lacs per month. It is further reiterated all these vital aspects have not been examined by the Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 5 of 51 Ld. Trial Court about the financial status of the respondents and their income including source of income.
5. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Aakanksha Anand who is house wife along with her minor daughter after being thrown out from her matrimonial home have been staying at the mercy of her parents and it is an admitted stand of respondents that Aakanksha Anand was not working during her stay at matrimonial home thus the amount of maintenance claimed by Aakanksha Anand was totally justified and apt according to the financial status and source of income of Vineet Anand and his family members.
6. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to observe that Aakanksha Anand is a house wife without any independent source of income and is also responsible for bringing up a minor daughter who at present is aged about 5 years and is a school going child requires the amount as mentioned in her application u/s 23 of the Act towards maintenance, education, residence etc. for Aakanksha Anand as well as her minor daughter.
7. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the social and financial status of the respondents who have been residing in a huge and luxurious residence apart from having four luxurious cars make Toyota Corolla, Hyundai, Swift and Maruti Esteem as admitted in the written statement. Therefore it is crystal clear keeping in mind the financial status of the respondents as Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 6 of 51 evident from the documents on record thereby showcasing their well to do and affluent status which is further pellucid from the documents pertaining to the bank accounts, list of properties, photographs of lavish lifestyle led by the respondents.
8. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to evaluate the specific averments emanating from the written statement filed by Vineet Anand and respondent no.2, 3 and 4, wherein specifically averments have been made pertaining to the affluent lifestyle in the form of various foreign trips to Europe, Dubai and number of other places, gifting of expensive items, organizing of lavish and extravagant functions on occasions of birthdays, chola etc. on various occasions.
9. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondents in their written statement filed before the Ld. Trial Court has put on record number of documents depicting therein on their affluence status and laving lifestyles. It is also submitted that the interim maintenance according to the numerous pronouncements delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts is to be decided of the aggrieved person on the basis of the financial status, back ground of the families, requirement etc. of the aggrieved persons which are vital consideration while deciding the amount of interim maintenance. However, these important and relevant factors have not been looked into by the Ld. Trial Court.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 7 of 51
10. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate and scrutinize the income of the respondents specially of Vineet Anand including evaluating the income tax returns of Vineet Anand and his family members. It is submitted that as evident from the statement of joint account of Vineet Anand and Aakanksha Anand, in which exorbitant amounts running into the double digit of lacs of rupees have been in circulation at the instance of Vineet Anand. Further, it is an admitted stand of Vineet Anand that he used to manage all the finances including operating bank accounts stands jointly in the name of Vineet Anand and Aakanksha Anand. This factum clearly without any ambiguity establishes that Vineet and his family members are person of gargantuan means without having any peril in their lives and have substantial sources of income etc. as mentioned in the application of Aakanksha Anand which have not been denied or disputed by the respondents in their respective written statements.
11. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the entries in the bank statements of Andhra Bank filed by Aakanksha Anand which depicts a trail of entries and transfers of money to the tune of Rs.4 lacs, 9.5 lacs, 7 lacs, 21 lacs etc. in a short duration and surprisingly the said transactions have been emanating between Vineet Anand and respondent no. 2 which clearly establishes the financial status and income of the respondents.
12. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Vineet Anand Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 8 of 51 has been living in Dubai for the last more than 2 years and further running 2 ambient restaurants and having his huge office situated opposite to Burj Khalifa Tower which is prime locality and vicinity of the Dubai clearly establishes that Vineet Anand has no paucity of adequate funds and is earning Lacs of rupees per month from the above stated business activities. Thus it is proved on record that Vineet Anand has taken a false defence that Vineet Anand is earning a salary of Rs. 23,000/ per month and on the other hand as admission on his part as well as other respondents that Vineet Anand took Aakanksha Anand for various international trips to London, Paris, Switzerland, Dubai, besides domestic trips to Goa, Kashmir etc. on various occasions which negate the so called defence of job or earning Rs.23,000/ per month. It would not be out of place to mention here that the marriage between Vineet Anand and Aakanksha Anand was arranged marriage and both the families entered into this matrimonial alliance for their children after satisfying the financial and social status of both of them, admittedly the parents of Aakanksha Anand having good financial and social status, residing in a big house situated in posh colony would not have agreed to enter into matrimonial alliance for their daughter with a boy who is earning meager amount of Rs.23,000/ per month as alleged. It is therefore, highly absurd on the part of the respondents that Vineet Anand is a low salaried person of meager means.
13. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Vineet Anand Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 9 of 51 during his stay in Dubai where he was carrying his business activities was also involved in a cheque bounce case there, which was issued by him in respect of his business activities there to some party in Dubai to the tune of crores of rupees and after the non encashment of the said cheque, Vineet Anand had to face incarceration and later the matter got settled on payment of the cheque amount by Vineet Anand. The documents in this regard were filed by Aakanksha Anand, however, again the same was not considered by the Ld. Trial Court.
14. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly apply the judicial dictum as laid down in “Bharat Hegde vs. Saroj Hegde” in regard to the 11 factors for ascertaining the true and correct social and financial status of the respondents for the purpose of grant of maintenance. It is further reiterated in the above stated judgement the Hon’ble Court has categorically stated the 11 factors to be considered while deciding the maintenance to the aggrieved person.
15. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the contents of FIR No. 337/2016 which was registered at PS K N Katju Marg at the instance of respondent no. 3 against one Mr. Dev Sharma and it was stated by the respondent no. 3 that Vineet Anand has been indulged in the illegal activities of Satta and betting in cricket matches and lost 10/15 lacs of rupees in the said gambling. Thus this document which has been authored by the mother of Vineet Anand make it crystal clear about the income of Vineet Anand Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 10 of 51 as the person who is earning Rs.23,000/ per month could not have been able to loss 10/15 lacs in gambling in a short span.
16. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs inclusive of food, cloths, medication, electricity charges, rental charges, household expenses and other miscellaneous expenses is a minuscule amount for Aakanksha Anand and her minor school going daughter according to the financial status of respondents and therefore totally apt and justified.
17. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the judicial dictum of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in cases titled as “Rishi Kumar v.
Suman”, “Manmohan Kolhi v. Natasha Kolhi” and “Bharat Bararia v. Priyanka Bararia” which envisage that a wife is accustomed to the same social and financial status of that of her husband and other family members, however the guiding factors to decide the maintenance for the wife as stated in the above mentioned judgements have not been rightly applied and evaluate by the Ld. Trial Court.
18. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the minor child who is as of today nearly 5 years old has started going to a proper well renowned English Medium school in contradistinction to the Play School (G.D. Goenka La Petite School) at the time of filing of the said petition under the Act and with passage of time the expenses of the child for her Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 11 of 51 education, medical, clothing etc. have doubled up thereby justifying the maintenance amount claimed by the appellant.
19. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Aakanksha Anand has claimed the reasonable amount of Rs.3,00,000/ as maintenance for herself and her minor school going daughter which include house rent, food, medical aid, recreation, education expenses of the child, travelling (car petrol) as well as other miscellaneous expenses of child in the contemporary world.
6. Hence Aakanksha Anand has prayed for enhancement
of interim maintenance to the tune of amount prayed in the
7. Similarly, feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld.MM
dated 29.11.2018 the respondent Vineet Anand preferred his appeal
bearing No. 261/2019 on the following grounds: 1. That from the complaint itself it is evident that Aakanksha Anand is misusing the provisions of Section 12 read with sections 17/18/19/20/22/23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 meant for deprived and destitute women.
2. That Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that Vineet Anand is earning Rs.1,00,000/ p.m. No basis for this finding has been Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 12 of 51 given in the order. No weightage has been given to the ITRs and income affidavit of Vineet Anand.
3. That Aakanksha Anand is a highly qualified lady being a post graduate i.e. MA in English (as mentioned in her own income affidavit) whereas Vineet Anand is an undergraduate. Before the marriage also Aakanksha Anand was employed as a teacher in Lancer Convent School and now is teaching tuitions which is corroborated from her ITRs.
4. That Vineet Anand has been living in a rented accommodation since August, 2016 after being thrown out from his home and a copy of rent agreement was also filed by Vineet Anand before the Ld. Trial Court.
5. That Aakanksha Anand is earning and capable of bearing the expenses of education of the kid, so she got her admitted to a private public school, as per her own claim. Further, she exaggerated the education expenses, as per the school receipt, the school fee for the child is Rs.8,000/ for 3 months whereas she stated it was per month. Aakanksha Anand has taken LIC insurance of the child and has been paying Rs.12,000/ p.a. and Rs.15,000/ p.a. towards medical insurance. It is beyond understanding how the child would be benefited from the said policy as on today.
6. That there is one car make Honda City which is owned by Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 13 of 51 Aakanksha Anand and is in the possession of Aakanksha Anand is not working (as claimed by her) and has the car why she has engaged the private vehicle for transportation of kid to school.
7. That Vineet Anand is an undergraduate who is being harassed by Aakanksha Anand by employing devious means. Aakanksha Anand has concealed the factum of employment of her husband as she knew and is well aware that Vineet Anand has been in job and had even gone to Dubai on work visa on being employed in a job as labour supervisor in SJH Interior Decoration LLC, however, since the employer did not pay his salary, the case was referred to the labour court due to which Vineet Anand was not paid his salary and was made to return to Delhi. Vineet Anand got employed in 4A Securities Limited as Sales Executive since 19.03.2018 on salary of Rs. 23,000/ per month. Prior to these employments, Vineet Anand has worked in Serco, HCL, AEGIS, IBM and some other organizations. The ITR of Vineet Anand also prove the same.
8. That Aakanksha Anand mentions in her petition u/s 12 of PWDVA in paragraph no. 17 that the parents of Aakanksha Anand made all the arrangements like flight booking, hotel expenses etc. and paid for the trip to Goa. Further, Vineet Anand has categorically mentioned that all the trips with his wife were either sponsored by his parents or the parents of Aakanksha Anand. He had only spent for a trip to Shimla.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 14 of 51
9. That Vineet Anand faced hardships due to the cruel behaviour of Aakanksha Anand as a result Vineet Anand and Aakanksha Anand were disowned by his parents and stopped giving financial help to Vineet Anand. It is stated that Vineet Anand is not the owner of any business/factory nor does he have any kind of financial gain/profit from any business. Vineet Anand has been employed ever since and was never involved in business of his family or father.
10. That Aakanksha Anand has enumerated various properties etc. but produced no proof to substantiate the same since not even one of the said properties is owned by Vineet Anand or his father thus there is no rental earning of Vineet Anand. The same are totally denied.
11. That it is categorically stated that Vineet Anand has no immovable property and gets no rental income and Aakanksha Anand be put to strict proof for the same. It is submitted that Vineet Anand has already been debarred from the property by his parents vide publication.
12. That Ld. Trial Court was in so haste to decide the application u/s 23 DV Act that it did not realise that Aakanksha Anand had not even filed her Income Affidavit in terms of observation made by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of “Puneet Kaur v.
Inderjeet Singh Sawhney, 183 (2011) DLT 403”. Aakanksha Anand did not file all documents as are required as per the Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 15 of 51 judgement deliberately despite the Ld. Trial Court order just to conceal her employment and her true financial status despite submissions made by Vineet Anand seeking directions to Aakanksha Anand to produce the same.
13. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the false and fabricated submissions made by Aakanksha Anand without any documentary evidence.
14. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the fact that the car make Honda City is in the use and possession of Aakanksha Anand.
15. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the fact that Aakanksha Anand is highly qualified and gainfully employed and it is admitted fact that before marriage and even after marriage Aakanksha Anand worked at several places as mentioned above.
16. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly emphasized the fact that Vineet Anand went to various destinations. The fact is that at that time it was sponsored by the parents of Aakanksha Anand as stated by her own self in her petition.
17. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the fact that Aakanksha Anand in para no. 1 of the income affidavit at point 11 states her monthly expenditure is Rs.3 lacs but has nowhere showed how she is spending the same amount if she is not earning and has not even stated that she had taken any loan. Moreover, in Part Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 16 of 51 III point no. 39 she states monthly expenditure as Rs.20,000/ approx. on the child and the expenditure as mentioned by her in Part V is vague wherein she states that she “requires” Rs.60,000/ towards rent which is an exorbitant amount and is not at all being spent by her admittedly. Further, she seeks an exorbitant amount of Rs.80,000/ towards food etc. Even if all her expenditure are added still they do not add anywhere upto Rs.3.00 lacs. Further, Aakanksha Anand has omitted filing her ITR, Bank Statements, or any proof towards her expenditures. She has preferred making exaggerated submissions. Vineet Anand has even filed an application submitting the discrepancies in the income affidavit of Aakanksha Anand seeking directions to her to file her bank statements, ITRs, bills etc. but she preferred not to file the same. Vineet Anand has been living in a rented accommodation at the mercy of his uncle paying Rs.3000/ per month apart from consolidated amount of Rs.8,000/ pm towards food, gas, grocery, electricity, washing clothes etc. 18. Ld. Trial Court overlooked the fact that Vineet Anand has taken loan of more than Rs. 3,35,000/ which he is repaying in installments @ Rs.5,000/ pm. 19. The Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that Vineet Anand is employed only since June, 2016 whereas Vineet Anand has filed all documents regarding his employment/salary since the year 2009 which is much prior to his marriage in companies like Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 17 of 51 SERCO, HCL, AEGIS, IBM. Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the specific denial of Vineet Anand regarding any business earning or any interest in his father’s business.
20. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly believed Vineet Anand statement that Vineet Anand has visited Dubai and has business there by overlooking the legal documents filed by Vineet Anand which clearly throw a light at his true statement that he was in job in Dubai but had not received salary due to which he was constrained to file a case before Labour Court in Dubai.
21. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that the affidavit of Vineet Anand is contrary to the submissions made by Vineet Anand even though she has not produced any document to substantiate any of her averment regarding the earning/source of income of Vineet Anand.
22. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly concluded that the income of Vineet Anand is at least Rs.1,00,000/ pm and awarding Aakanksha Anand Rs.50,000/ pm towards maintenance of herself and the child.
8. Hence he has prayed that his appeal be allowed and
application of Aakanksha Anand for monetary relief be dismissed.
9. The core of the argument of Ld. Counsel for Aakanksha
Anand had been that Ld. Trial Court failed to take into account the Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 18 of 51 concealment on the part of the respondents about their financial
capacity and financial status and that they are hand in glove with
each other to show that Vineet Anand is living away from them and
earning meager income of Rs 23,000/ pm. He had further submitted
that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that in Indian Society
when parents of girl decides to marry their girl with a boy, despite all
modernity that have crept into society, they still take into account the
wealth and prosperity and financial background of the parents of the
boy. Many a times rich parents of a girl refuses to marry their
daughter to a boy who is otherwise talented and scholarly having
great potential but not having financial background, of course except
in case of boy being IAS, IPS, Judge or similarly placed or employed
with private company having sound yearly packages. He argued that
still in our society nobody from well off section is willing to marry
their daughter to first generation professional with no background
despite boy having professional course in his cap. This is so because in
India still social security is almost negligible and in case of emergency
or bad time one has to fall back to the parents’ properties and income.
That’s why in India income and wealth of parents of boys assume
great importance in finalising the nuptial ties.
10. He had submitted that it is not in dispute that parents
of Aakanksha Anand are well settled financially and has high
standard of living. It is also not in dispute that Aakanksha Anand is
well educated. Admittedly the marriage between Aakanksha Anand
and Vineet Anand was not love marriage. Now in these circumstance
such parents of such girl like that of Akansh Anand will not marry Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 19 of 51 their daughter to a boy who was allegedly working in private company
for meager sum of Rs 9,000/ pm with no future prospect as
respondents claimed that Vineet Anand is not MCA.
11. He had further argued that it is the claim of the
respondents that they did not ask for huge marriage expenses nor
were they ready to accept gifts like Honda City car etc. as they
themselves had sufficient amount wealth and means like ACs, Cars
etc.. Thus it go to show that they were/are man of not ordinary means,
that is to say that they were/are well off. He argued that if at all it is
believed that Vineet was working for Rs 9,000/ pm at the time of
marriage and parents of Aakanksha agreed to with the marriage
proposal then it go to show that parents of Vineet had represented
that they were to stand behind to allow Aakanksha lead the standard
of life/living not worse than what she had at her parents home before
marriage. Hence, he had argued that now when question of
maintenance has come they cannot take shelter behind Vineet and
contend that they are not responsible to maintain her, if at all it is
accepted that Vineet was earning only Rs. 9000/ pm and was earning
Rs 23,000/ pm. 12. Alternatively, he argued that if it was not so then
certainly parents of Aakanksha Anand agreed to marry their daughter
to Vineet Anand as he was good business man running the business
of manufacturing of cooker and its spare parts along with his father or
at least all respondents represented so otherwise parents of
Aakanksha would not have married their daughter to him. Further, as Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 20 of 51 per respondents themselves, they gave lavish lifestyle to Aakanksha
Anand. He has argued that if Vineet Anand was earning Rs 9,000/ pm
or so and if he and his wife were to lead within that means then why
5Star hotel was booked for their Honeymoon, why they were sent
Europe for honeymoon trip, why birthdays were being celebrated at
Dubai, Jaipur and other lavish places and why she were to lead same
lifestyle if dispute had not arisen. He argued that if Vineet and
Aakanksha were to lead their life within the means of Rs. 9,000/ pm
as increased from time to time, then parents of Vineet were more
responsible for spoiling the life of Aakanksha Anand. A person
earning Rs. 9,000/ pm at the beginning cannot afford to stay in 5 Star
hotel, cannot think of going to Dubai, Europe etc. He argued that all
these go to show that “words and deeds differ of bad person”.
13. He has further argued that so called disowning of
Vineet Anand by his parents is nothing but a ploy to deny the rightful
amount of maintenance to Aakanksha Anand and her child. Ld.
Counsel for Aakanksha Anand had questioned the need to disown
Vineet if Vineet is neither running any business of manufacturing nor
has share in rental income. He submitted that this very attempt on
the part of the parents of Vineet Anand go to show malafide
intentions of respondents and that they are hand in glove. He has
further argued that Vineet is the only son of his parents and
admittedly in their reply they have not found fault with their son then
why they would disown them? He argued it is only a screen created to
raise a legal bar in the way of Aakanksha and her child having their
right of maintenance but that screen is transparent enough to expose Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 21 of 51 the misdeeds on other side. He had argued that court cannot be
ignorant of this attempt and certainly has authority to lift this veil
and see the reality. He had argued that admittedly parents of Vineet
had not denied their income, financial status and financial capability
and if at all Vineet is earning only Rs 23,000/ PM as is being claimed
but they having allowed their son and his wife to lead life beyond his
means continuously for almost 4 years, cannot be allowed to withdraw
from providing those facilities, even if it is believed, though denied,
that Vineet is employed with some private security company earning
Rs 23,000/ PM. Hence, he has contended that irrespective of going
into question as to what is the income of Vineet Anand, the sum
claimed by Aakanksha Anand is required to be allowed and she is not
required to explain her expenditure as Aakanksha and her daughter
are entitled to same standard of living as she had enjoyed till dispute
arose and the living standard as is being enjoyed by the respondents,
which cannot be achieved if sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ per month is not
awarded as maintenance. He has further contended that in any case
Aakanksha Anand has explained the expenditure in her affidavit.
14. Ms Vandana Anand, Ld. Counsel for Vineet Anand has
impugned the order under challenge primarily submitting that the
court below has not taken into consideration the documentary
evidence/ materials filed by Vineet Anand qua his employment in the
past as well as in the present. She has further contended that
petitioner is entitled, if any, to maintenance then she is entitled to
claim the same from the income of her husband only and not from the
respondents no. 2 to 4. She has further argued that Aakanksha Anand Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 22 of 51 had to live in accordance with the means of her husband and if her
husband is earning Rs. 23,000/ per month then she had to adjust
herself within that. She has further argued that respondent no. 2 may
be affluent but his income and resources cannot be made part of the
income of Vineet Anand or respondent no. 2 cannot be made liable to
pay maintenance if her husband is otherwise incapable of giving
15. She has further argued that Vineet Anand has placed
on record ample documents to show that he had never been into
business of his father and the only business which he had started
failed. It has been contended that Vineet Anand had gone to Dubai on
labour contract is also stands established from the findings given by
the labour court of Dubai. She contended that Ld trial erred in
ignoring the documents filed by Vineet Anand and in arriving at
unimaginable figure of Rs 1,00,000/ per month as income of Vineet.
16. Next limb of argument on behalf of counsel for Vineet
Anand is that since Aakanksha Anand herself is well qualified and
was working in Lancer Convent Public School as a Teacher just prior
to her marriage, cannot sit idle to become a non productive asset for
herself, for society and for her husband. It has been contended that
though she is earning Rs. 25,000/ per month from tuition which she is
imparting to various students, but even if she is not earning she
cannot get maintenance unless she shows what sincere efforts she had
made herself to get employment. It has been contended that in the
entire application and documents relied upon by her she no where Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 23 of 51 pleaded that despite her best efforts she had not been able to get any
constructive engagement. Ld. Counsel for Vineet Ananad has relied
upon Smt. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (4) MPHT 457, Dharampreet Kaur v. Inderveet Juneja 2012 (5) LRC 279 (Delhi) and unreported order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Vijay Kumar v. Harsha Aggarwal (order dated 10.09.2008) to contend that a qualified lady is not entitled to maintenance if no
sincere effort is made by her to get her own source of income. Relying
upon those judgements she contended that a modern lady with high
qualification cannot be equated with a gullible lady of a village.
Hence, she has contended that irrespective of the question as to
whether Vineet Anand or his family members financially capable or
not, she (Aakanksha Anand) cannot claim maintenance by
deliberately and voluntarily choosing to be a liability.
17. Next argument is to the effect that Aakanksha Anand
herself had left the house and there is ample CCTV footage on record
to show that no throwing of her from her matrimonial house took
place as alleged by her in the complaint. It has been contended that
when on record it is prima facie shown that she had left the
matrimonial home on her own she is not entitled to claim
maintenance as the basic foundation to claim maintenance is missing.
She has further contended that CCTV footage shows that she left the
house on 20.05.2016 on her own along with her mother who had come
to pick her up. In the CCTV footage it is also shown that she had left
along with her baggage. It has been further contended that
subsequent CCTV footage would also show that many a times she had
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 24 of 51 come to her matrimonial home along with her friends and nobody from
the side of the respondent ever obstructed her. CCTV footage would
further show that she had unobstructed access to her bedroom and to
her belongings which were left and which she took away later on. It
has been further contended that when one chooses herself to stay
away from matrimonial home then she cannot claim maintenance or
monetary relief as claimed by her.
18. In response to contention of the Ld. Counsel for
Aakanksha Anand that respondent no. 2 having allowed luxurious life
to his son and Aakanksha Anand cannot withdraw the same, she has
submitted that court of law has to take into consideration the law and
not what one has practiced. She has contended that howsoever sound
a logic or reasoning may be court has to act in accordance with the law
as laid down by Legislature and interpreted by Judiciary. She
contends that since under law only husband is liable for the
maintenance of his wife then only income of husband has to be taken
into consideration, even if potentiality of wife’s earning is to be
ignored. Hence, she contends that trial court erred in assessing the
income of Vineet Anand to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/ per month and
further erred in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ per
19. Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 has
submitted that trial court erroneously directed the respondents to pay
maintenance to the Aakanksha Anand. He relied upon Sunita Gangwal v. Chhote Lal 2018 (I) DMC 783 (Delhi), Darshana v.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 25 of 51 Government of NCT III (2018) DLC 555 (Delhi), Darshana v.
Government of NCT (III) 2018 DMC 561 (DB) (Delhi) and judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as Jagdev Singh v. Paramjeet Kaur to contend that liability to maintain wife is upon the husband and not upon fatherinlaw, motherinlaw or
sisterinlaw. Hence, he contends that the impugned order is illegal
and not enforceable against respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
20. Trial Court record and various judgement cited by
counsels for respective parties perused. Rival submissions made at
bar by respective Counsels for parties considered.
21. It cannot be disputed that parents of Aakanksha Anand
and parents of Vineet Anand belong to high income group and are
leading life of such a standard which large majority of population of
India still dreams of. Admittedly parents of Vineet Anand had a five
bedroom accommodation, four cars, all rooms with ACs and other
modern day gadgets. Entire house is covered under CCTV. Parents of
Vineet Anand had arranged many luxury functions including visit to
foreign places like Europe and Dubai. It is also not in dispute that
respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. father, mother and sister of Vineet
Anand are still leading the same standard of living as was being led
by all the respondents prior to the dispute. It is also not in dispute
that business of manufacturing of cooker and its parts is being run
either only by respondent No.2 as claimed by respondents or by Vineet
and respondents No.2 jointly as claimed by Aakanksha. It is also not
in dispute that respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 neither filed reply to the
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 26 of 51 application under Section 23(2) of DV Act filed be Aakanksha Anand
nor have they challenged the impugned order by filling separate
appeal. Hence, so far as respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned
impugned order is final qua them.
22. A question which arises for consideration is when
parents of girl marry their daughter on the strength of wealth and
prosperity of the parents of the boy (and not on the strength and
prosperity of the boy) and further when parents of the boy on the
strength of their income allow his married son and his wife to lead
luxurious life much beyond the means of alleged meager income of
son, can they withdraw the same abruptly and left the girl at the
mercy of husband/boy earning meager income of Rs. 9,000/ or
Rs.23,000/ per month. None of the case laws relied upon by the
counsel for Vineet Anand and counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 and 4
seems to have dealt with this issue. None of the case laws relied upon
by them shows raising of this issue and negation by Higher Court of
law. No doubt case laws relied upon by the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4
rules that a daughterinlaw or for that matter son has no right or
interest or claim in the separate property or income of fatherinlaw
(or father) but in none of the said case laws present question of
representation by parents and subsequent honoring and then
withdrawing by parents was raised and discussed, hence, the case
laws relied upon by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are distinguishable
23. It may be argued that this so called representation by Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 27 of 51 the parents of Vineet Anand was neither raised nor pleaded in the
application and hence cannot be gone into by this Court. It is true that
it was not so pleaded nor raised before the Ld Trial Court but this
question has acquired importance due to projection that luxurious life
to both Aakanksha Anand and Vineet Anand was financed by
respondent No. 2 and that Vineet Anand was employed with salary of
Rs. 9,000/ pm or so and is employed with salary of Rs. 23,000/ pm.
Admittedly, parents of Aakanksha Anand belongs to high income
group. Aakanksha Anand herself is Masters in English. Further as
per respondents Vineet is under graduate and was employed with
private company at a salary of Rs 9,000/ month at the time of
marriage. In these circumstance why parents of Aakanksha would
marry their daughter to such a boy who earns only Rs 9,000/ pm.
Certainly, either it was the wealth, income and promise of the
parents of Vineet Anand that Aakanksha would face no financial
problem in their home or Vineet was infact not employed but was into
business of manufacturing of cookers and generating handsome
income so as to provide at least same standard of living to Aakanksha
as she was enjoying in her parents home. It is either of this fact that
would have made parents of Aakanksha agreed to marry their
daughter to Vineet Anand and if either of the two is not correct then it
can be presumed that both Vineet and parents of Vineet
misrepresented Vineet to be a businessman and concealed the factum
of his employment with meager salary of Rs.9,000/ pm at the time of
negotiation of marriage.
24. It is, however, not the case of the respondents that Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 28 of 51 there was any misrepresentation about the employment of Vineet
Anand nor is their case that parents ever promised of taking good care
of Aakanksha financially then it certainly leads to the conclusion that
at the relevant time Vineet was into business and was earning good
amount other wise parents of Aakanksha would not have agreed to
married their daughter below their standard and Vineet would not
have been leading luxurious life. A person earning Rs 9,000/ a month
would not dream of celebrating honeymoon in five star hotel and
would even go on honeymoon trip to Europe. The plea that all these
were financed by respondent No.2 is only a fake attempt to avoid
liability to maintain his wife and children at the same standard of
25. Vineet has placed on record his I card issued by SERCO
and HCL and letters of offers from SERCO, AEGIS, HCL and IBM to
show that he has been a man belonging to salaried class and not into
any business. This Court has perused these documents. The letter of
offers of SERCO, AEGIS and HCL are of 2009 whereas letter of offer
from IBM is of the year 2010. Vide letter of offer dt 21.10.2009 from
SERCO Vineet was asked to join by 22.10.2009 as an “Account Co
ordinator”, though Vineet claims to have no professional degree or
diploma. His I Card issued by SERCO shows that he joined the said
company on 22.10.2009. There is letter of offer from AEGIS which
letter is dated 7.10.2009. No I card or letter of joining AEGIS has been
placed on record, hence, it can safely be concluded that he had not
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 29 of 51
26. Next is the letter from HCL to undergo training as an
intern. This letter is dt 30.10.2009 and was effective from 30.10.2009
itself. He has also placed on record I card issued by HCL which means
that he worked with SERCO only for 8 days and then joined HCL. He
can not be said to be working in both companies SERCO and HCL at
the same time. Further this letter of offer was only for a period of
three months. Nothing has been placed on record to show that this
internship was extended or he was absorbed as an employee of HCL.
What he did after three months i.e. after 30.01.2010, is not clear nor
27. Then is letter of appointment dt 4.08.2010 from IBM.
Neither I card of IBM nor any salary account showing receipt of salary
from IBM has been placed on record. Further, marriage between
Aakanksha Anand and Vineet Anand took place on 23.01.2013.
Nothing has been placed on record to show that he was in the IBM
even on the day when he got married. Further, it is the case of Vineet
Anand himself that he started business under the name and style of
M/s Aakanksha Enterprise but suffered huge loss. He did not place on
record anything to show as to when he left IBM (if at all he had joined
it), what he was doing prior to said start of his business, when he
started the said business, what was the amount that he invested in
the said business, what was the source of his said investment. He is
silent on these aspects. Thus, on preponderance of probability, it
cannot be said that Aakanksha got married to a salaried man having
salary of Rs 14,336/ pm (as reflected from the letter of appointment of
IBM) or that Vineet Anand remained a salaried man till the start of Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 30 of 51 his business M/s Aakanksha Enterprises. Thus, the contention of the
Ld. Counsel for Vineet that Vineet was man of salaried class stands
rejected and no error was committed by Ld Trial Court so far as
appreciating of the documents of employment of Vineet is concerned.
28. Both Vineet Anand and his father respondent No.2 has
claimed that business of manufacturing cooker and its part was/is
being run only by respondent No.2 but nothing has been placed on
record as to whether the same was/is being run as a proprietor or in
partnership or as a company. No record regarding its earning etc. of
the relevant and current period has been placed on record. Since it has
not been denied that Vineet was earning member on the day of his
marriage and his employment contention stands rejected as noted
above, therefore, the necessary inference is that he was into the
business of manufacturing of cookers and its part along with his
29. Further, Vineet himself has filed on record a ledger of
Kiran Anand & Son HUF. This document has been placed on record to
show that a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/ has been paid to Aakanksha from
this HUF but no record of this HUF has been placed on record. This
document shows that an HUF is in existence, however, neither Vineet
Anand nor respondents no. 2 to 4 have disclosed as to who are its
coparcenors and its members. Nothing has been placed on record to
show as to what is the annual income of this HUF and what are the
sources of income and what are the properties hold by HUF. Where
from Rs 21 lacs came in the said HUF account to give it to Aakanksha Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 31 of 51 and how much amount is available in the said account? Silence on the
part of the respondents on these aspect go against the respondents. It
also goes to show that respondents particularly Vineet, are concealing
their real income and therefore an adverse inference is to be drawn
against the respondents. The name of the HUF itself suggest that son
of Kiran Anand is its coparcenor which automatically makes
Aakanksha Anand and her daughter its member. When HUF is in
existence, then Aakanksha and her daughter being its member also
becomes entitled to maintenance from the income and funds of HUF.
They are also entitled to a share in the property of HUF as and when
partition takes place.
30. Lets examined other documents filed by Vineet. He has
filed on record statement of account from Union Bank of India in
respect of account bearing no. 672603030000192 standing in the name
of his daughter Saavnika. This account was opened on 19.05.2014 i.e.
soon after her birth on 28.04.2014 with a sum of Rs.1,01,000/ and in
this account till 28.03.2018 no amount has been deposited except the
interest accrued on Rs.1,01,000/. Obviously this account was opened
when the dispute between the parties had not arisen and it appears
that it had been opened with the amount which respondent no. 2
claims to have given to Aakanksha on the birth of Saanvika on
28.04.2014. Though it is not clear from the statement of account but it
has been claimed that this amount is lying under the guardian of
31. Vineet Anand has placed another statement of bank Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 32 of 51 account of Andhara Bank in respect of account bearing no.
137720100065800 in the name of Saanvika Anand under the
guardianship of Aakanksha Anand. This statement of account shows
that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ was deposited by respondent no. 2 on
13.01.2016 and till 23.03.2018 not a single amount has been deposited
in this account except the interest accrued on the said sum of
32. Third documents is also statement of account from State
Bank of India in respect of Sukanya Samridhi account bearing no.
65255347370 standing in the name of Saanvika. The statement of
account contains three entries only one is of Rs.1,000/, another is of
Rs. 54,000/ and the last one is of Rs.4,703/. In all in this account as
on 16.03.2018 lies a total sum of Rs.64,803/. Though it is not clear but
it is alleged that even this amount is available with Aakanksha.
33. Fourth is again statement of account from Andhara Bank
in respect of account bearing no. 137720100042377 standing in the
name of Saanvika under the guardianship of Aakanksha Anand. This
statement of account shows that on 19.05.2014 a sum of Rs.1,01,000/
was deposited in this account after transferring the said amount from
Account bearing no. 173101100017371. In this account also till
23.03.2018 no amount has been deposited except the interest accrued
on the said amount Rs. 1,01,000/.
34. Fifth is also statement of account from Union Bank of
India bearing account no. 672602010000003 standing in the name of Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 33 of 51 Vineet Anand. This account was opened on 01.10.2012. It starts with
zero balance and on 19.05.2014 a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ by way of cash
was deposited in this account, out of which a sum of Rs.1,01,000/ on
very same date transferred to account 303192. Thereafter in this
account till 18.03.2018 bank has only deducted general charges and
other charges and it shows deposit of only interest amount on the
balance sum of Rs.4,000/.
35. Thus neither from the statement of bank accounts of
Saanvika nor from the statement of bank accounts of Aakanksha
Anand any inference favourable to Vineet Anand or respondents can
be drawn so far as Aakanksha’s petition for monetary relief is
concerned. It cannot be said that she had been earning. All the
amounts were deposited when dispute had not arisen and admittedly
when Aakanksha was not working, as it is not the case of the
responders that after marriages Aakanksha was working any where
and earning. This bank accounts also does not help the case of the
respondents that Aakanksha is currently imparting tuition and
earning Rs. 25,000/ pm. 36. Vineet Anand has also filed on record his ITRs for the
period 201213, 201314, 201415, 201516 and 201617. These ITRs
were filed on 05.03.2013, 17.08.2013, 18.12.2014, 14.03.2016 and on
06.07.2016 respectively. A gross total income for these periods shown
are Rs. 1,92,540/, Rs. 3,02,005/, Rs. 2,26,488/, Rs. 2,67,998/ and Rs.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 34 of 51
37. Vineet Anand had also placed on record ITRs of
Aakanksha Anand for the period 201213, 201314, 201415 and 2015
16 wherein gross income has been shown as Rs. 1,89,625/, Rs.
2,40,200/, Rs. 2,16,566/ and Rs. 2,70,137/ respectively. These ITRs
too were filed on 05.03.2013, 17.08.2013, 18.12.2014 and on 14.03.2016
38. It is noticed that ITRs of Vineet Anand and Aakanksha
Anand for the assessment years 201213, 201314, 201415 and 2015
2016 were filed on the same day and they were filed online.
Unsurprisingly same were filed from the same IP address. All the
ITRs of Aakanksha Anand are of her post marriage period as
Aakanksha and Vineet were married on 23.01.2013. It is not the case
of the respondent that after marriage till the dispute arose between
the parties Aakanksha was working anywhere. Once she was not
working then certainly the gross income shown in her income tax
returns are either tax saving mechanism of Vineet Anand or it was
the income of Aakanksha Anand from other sources like interest on
deposits or rental. Since it is not the case of the respondent that
Aakanksha has any property from which she had rental income,
therefore, it is clear that the income which has been shown as that of
Aakanksha must be from deposits. Vineet has not been able to show
any deposits of Aakanksha where from she can earn yearly a sum of
Rs. 1,89,625/, Rs. 2,40,200/, Rs. 2,16,566/ and Rs. 2,70,137/ and so
39. Form 26AS of Aakanksha for the period of 201112 shows Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 35 of 51 interest income amounting to Rs.48,307/ and for the period 201213
shows interest income amounting to Rs.41,405/. There is no interest
income for the period of 201314 and 201415 and for the period 2015
16 the interest income is Rs. 9,394/ and for the period 201617
interest income is Rs. 19,329/ and for the period 201718 interest
income is Rs.14,754/. Thus, the interest income of Aakanksha is not
even near the figures of gross income of the assessment year 201213
to 201516. Since ITRs have been filed from the same IP address, it
goes to show that same were being filed and managed by Vineet
through his professional accountant/CA and in order to reduce tax
liability Aakanksha has also been shown to be earning. Therefore, ITR
of Aakanksha is of no advantage to Vineet.
40. Vineet himself has filed on record a ledger of Kiran Anand
& Sons HUF. Effect of existence of HUF has already been discussed
herein before, hence, same is not being discussed here for the sake of
41. Vineet Anand had placed on record statement of account
from Andhara Bank in respect of account bearing no. 310100017371
standing in the joint name of Aakanksha Anand and Vineet Anand.
Perusal of this account shows that on 31.05.2015 there was a balance
sum of Rs. 7,140/. On 31.07.2015 a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ was
deposited from an account of State Bank of India and the same day
the said amount was withdrawn by Vineet. Thereafter, on 16.12.2015
a sum of Rs. 4,05,000/ was deposited in cash, then on 17.12.2015 a
sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ was deposited in cash. On 17.12.2015 itself Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 36 of 51 another sums of Rs. 9,00,000/ and Rs. 7,20,000/ was transferred from
Kiran Anand and Son HUF. On 17.12.2015 itself a sums of Rs.
3,00,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ were transferred from Vineet Anand. On
22.12.2015 a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/ was given to one Abhiman. On
09.03.2016 a cash sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ was deposited and on
27.04.2016 cash sum of Rs. 1,70,000/ was deposited and same day it
was transferred to Vineet. On 22.06.2016 there remained only Rs.
1,915/ which had increased to Rs.1,980/ on 15.06.2017 and
subsequently it became zero on 22.03.2018. This joint account of
Vineet and Aakanksha shows huge amount is being deposited and
withdrawn many of them is in cash. Admittedly Aakanksha was not
having any source of income so this amounts were being brought and
withdrawn by Vineet.
42. Further Vineet has placed on record statement of bank
account from ICICI Bank in respect of account bearing no.
084201003363 standing in the name of Aakanksha Anand as per
which a sum of Rs. 95,305/ was available on 31.07.2016, Rs. 96,255/
on 31.10.2016, Rs. 78,379/ on 31.01.2017, Rs. 72,616/ on 01.05.2017,
Rs. 55,491/ on 31.07.2017, Rs. 48,495/ on 31.10.2017, Rs.28,784/ on
31.03.2018 and a sum of Rs. 27,278/ as on 21.04.2018. Perusal of
statement of account does not show any deposit of substantial amount
except of Rs.49,000/ on 24.05.2016 probably on the opening of the
account and cash sum of Rs.49,000/ on 27.05.2016. This account of
Aakanksha shows nothing to show any income of Aakanksha rather
balance has gone down from Rs. 96,255/ on 31.07.2016 to Rs. 27,278/
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 37 of 51
43. Vineet has also placed on record documents pertaining to
his alleged employment at Dubai. On the basis of those documents it
is his claim that he was employed in Dubai as a Labour Supervisor
with SIH Interior Decoration LLC. His Visa stamp shows that he
returned to Delhi on 27.04.2017 and the document which appears to
be his ID card shows the date of issuance as 03.11.2016. His
contention that he went to Dubai as Labour Supervisor and the
company for which he had gone there got blacklisted and a litigation
ensued in the Labour Court of United States of Emirates but nothing
has been mentioned by him as to what was the salary he was to get.
The facebook updates of Vineet Anand shows the lifestyle of Vineet
Anand at Dubai which is not in consonance with the salary a Labour
Supervisor would get. In any case it was for him to disclose what he
got from there and how he manged such life style if he was not paid
there by his blacklisted company.
44. It is the contention of the Aakanksha that he had opened
two restaurants at Dubai is not borne out from the records available
though it does appear that Vineet Anand had not gone there as a
labourer. Here, it is also worthwhile to note that it is not uncommon
for Indian businessman to get into another country in the garb of
labouror or worker and run business in the foreign country in
association with other person or in the name of other person. In any
case even if it is believed that he was in job in Dubai for a brief period
that would not automatically made him salaried class person all
through out. It has already been discussed above that his claim that Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 38 of 51 he was into private job or is in private job cannot be accepted and
already stood rejected. Further, he himself has shown existence of
Kiran Anand and Son HUF and since composition thereof has been
concealed calling for drawing of an adverse inference, therefore it can
be concluded that it comprises of Vineet also and therefor Aakanksha
and her daughter being member of HUF are entitled for maintenance
irrespective of whether there is any domestic violence or not.
45. Further Vineet claim himself to be presently working with
A4 Securities and stated to be drawing salary of Rs.23,000/ per
month. However, apart from offer letter (on which acceptance by
Vineet is recorded) nothing has been placed on record to show that he
infact is working with said A4 Securities nor did he place on record his
salary bank account and nor has he placed on record anything which
could show that he is getting salary and working in A4 Securities.
Hence, on this count also Vineet can be said to have failed in
convincing the court that he is into private job with a salary of Rs
23,000/ pm. 46. Further, Aakanksha Anand has placed on record
facebook post of Vineet where he is being shown as partying at Hyde
Park Hotel (Mankhool, Dubai), at Najmath Al Zaffran Restaurant
(Dubai) and Cafe Meena Bazar Dubai. She has also placed on record
photographs uploaded on facebook account of Vineet wherein Vineet
Anand is seen with friends at Nova Spinners Astoria Hotel, at
Barbeque, at one of the best roof party pub along with poolside view at
Rigent Palace Hotel, at Hyde Park Hotel, at Flying Saucer Cafe, at Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 39 of 51 George and Dragon Pub Koyala, Sherea Karachi, Tihara Restaurant
celebrating birthday at Hyde Park Hotel, at Cafe AzulCidade de Goa.
These facebook photographs have not been denied and disputed by
Vineet Anand. These parties and lifestyle cannot be entertained by a
labourer or by a person earning Rs. 23,000/ per month. Hence, the
contention that Vineet Anand is not running any business and in fact
is employed with salary of Rs. 23,000/ per month cannot be accepted
given his lifestyle.
47. Secondly admittedly there is existence of Kiran Anand
and Son HUF and nothing has been said about this HUF by either
Vineet Anand or respondents no. 2, 3 and 4. Various properties
mentioned by Aakanksha Anand in her application under Section 23
(2) of DV Act have not been categorically and specifically denied by
other respondents. Vineet Anand simply denied saying that he did not
have any business interest in the business of manufacturing cooker
and its parts or any other properties but the existence of Kiran Anand
& Son HUF and silence about it go to show that reality and factual
income has been concealed as discussed above. Further it can be
concluded that information provided by him in his affidavit regarding
his income and expenditure is not correct and real income of Vineet
has been concealed. Once he has concealed he cannot complain that
Court has unreasonably assumed his income. If correct and reliable
information is not provided by a party Court is certainly well within
its right to figure out income of a party from his/her life style taking
judicial notice of cost of living of a particular standard.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 40 of 51
48. Now coming to claim of Aakanksha Anand for monetary
relief. She had claimed a sum of Rs 3,00,000/ per month for herself
and for her daughter Saanvika. As per her Saanvika was going to
school G. D. Goenka La Petite Pitampura with tuition fees of Rs
8,000/ pm, stationery expenses of Rs. 2,500/ pm, outing/vacation Rs.
2,000/ pm, entertainment like toys etc. Rs. 15,000/ and Rs. 4,000/
pm for transportation charges and as such she had claimed Rs. 20,000
pm for Sanvika on account of education and entertainment. She had
also stated that she had paid Rs. 50,000/ to the school at the time of
admission besides purchase of uniform, books.
49. In respect of monthly expenditure she had stated that
Rs. 60,000/ pm towards rent, Rs. 80,000/ per month towards
groceries/food items/ personal care/clothing, Rs. 1500/ pm towards
water, Rs. 6000/ pm towards electricity, Rs 1000/ pm towards gas, Rs
800/ pm towards telephone/mobile, Rs. 800/ pm towards cable, Rs
10,000/ towards maintenance, replacement and repair items,
appliances, Rs 15,000/pm towards domestic help full/part time, Rs.
15,000/ per month for driver, Rs. 6,000/ fuel, Rs. 5,000/ pm
repair/maintenance, Rs 12,000/ p.a towards insurance, Rs. 1,500/
towards taxi occasionally, Rs. 5000/ pm towards doctors, Rs.5,000/
pm towards medication, Rs. 15,000/ p.a. towards mediclaim, Rs.
50,000/ towards legal expenses, Rs. 1,600/ towards Newspaper,
magazines, books etc., Rs. 50,000/ towards other festivals etc and
thus in all she had claimed Rs 3,00,000/ pm. 50. Ld. Counsel for Vineet has argued that Aakanksha has Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 41 of 51 to live in accordance with the means available. She has argued that
when her husband is earning Rs 23,000/ pm and she knows the same
very well then there was no need for her to admit her daughter in
school like G. D. Goenka and if she had done admission on the basis of
support from her parents she cannot shift the liability upon Vineet.
She has further argued that even otherwise school fee receipt placed
on record shows that tuition fee is Rs 2,500/ pm and not Rs. 8,000/
pm. It has been further argued that expenses shown by her is
obviously not being spent by her as she has not placed on record
income of her parents to show that Rs. 3,00,000/ pm is being spent.
Ld. Counsel for Vineet had further argued that no doubt mother of
Aakanksha is first class officer of the Joint Secretary to the Govet.
India but her whole month salary is far less than Rs 3,00,000/. Her
father is practicing advocate but nothing has been brought on record
that he had been sparing Rs. 3,00,000/ pm. towards her. Hence, she
had argued that claim of Rs. 3,00,000/ p.m is not only highly inflated
but also unrealistic.
51. Per contra Ld. Counsel for Aakanksha Anand had
drawn attention of the court to the reply filed by Respondent No.2
before CAW Cell wherein respondent No.2 had stated that on the
pressure of parents of Aakanksha he had been giving Rs. 35,000/ pm
towards pocket money to Aakanksha and said pocket money was
enhanced to Rs. 50,000/ pm after the birth of Saanvika. He had
argued that Rs. 50,000/ p.m was being given when entire other
expense like food, shelter, electricity, water, house, mobile, driver etc.
were being borne by husband and his undivided family. Now that Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 42 of 51 when she has been thrown out of matrimonial home and made to live
separately with growing child, she will have to bear all the expenses
on her own and therefore her claim is neither excessive nor unrealistic
given the standard of living she and her husband and inlaws are
accustomed to. Further, at present she is sharing the facilities
available at her parents house for many of which she need not to pay
separately. But in any case she cannot be made to live with her
parents for ever even if they are supportive and caring. It has been
further contended that such amount per month is needed to live at the
same standard of living to which she was accustomed.
52. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005
(in short DV Act) empowers Magistrate to grant monetary relief to the
aggrieved person. Section 20 (2) of DV Act provides that monetary
relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and
reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved person is accustomed.
53. Vineet and other respondents have not denied that
Aakanksha had enjoyed luxurious life in the matrimonial home and
this can also be inferred from the fact that she was given Rs 50,000/
p.m as pocket money which was till recently take home salary of an
IAS at entry level, a premier government job in India. Many a family
or government employee get Rs. 50,000/ as salary to run his entire
family for month. But Aakanksha was given this amount only as
pocket money. Pocket monies are not meant to meet the needs of life.
They are over and above the needs of life. Further, needs of lives Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 43 of 51 changes with standard of living one goes up and down the ladder of
standard of living. A cup of milk for a destitute may be luxury but is
need for a person of average income group. A glass of juice everyday
may be luxury for a person of a average income group but may be need
for higher income group. Hence, the need and luxury has got to be
seen in the context of socioeconomiccultural background of the
54. Further, pocket monies are generally a small fraction of
the expenditure one family is spending on its living that is to say
pocket monies are even less than 1% and if the person who is getting
Rs. 50,000/ per month as pocket money it is anyone’s estimation
what would be the average expenditure of the family for its living.
Going by this formula the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/ per month does not
appear to be unrealistic or excessive.
55. Further, the grant of maintenance under Section 20(2)
of DV Act is not restricted to meeting the needs of the aggrieved
person. A basic need of a human being seen from the poorest of the
society can be met even with Rs. 2,000/ to Rs. 5,000/ per month but
Section 20(2) of DV Act cast a duty upon the Court to grant monetary
relief “consistent with the standard of living to which aggrieved person
is accustomed”, beside being adequate, fair and reasonable. The
adequacy, fairness and reasonableness has got to be in tuned with
standard of living to which aggrieved person is accustomed. It is
nobody’s case that petitioner was not accustomed to lead high
standard of living not only at her parents home but also in her inlaws Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 44 of 51 house. Seen from this angle the claim of maintenance for herself and
for her daughter cannot said to be unreasonable. This could be
understood from another angle one could get her hair cut done at the
cheapest beauty parlour at Rs.70/ and one could also get her hair cut
at Rs.1,000/ from high end beauty parlour. It cannot be argued for a
lady of high income group that Rs.70/ would be sufficient for her to
get hair cut done. For the female of poorest section of the society
getting hair cut done itself is luxury even at Rs 70/. Therefore, what
could be reasonable, fair and adequate would certainly depends upon
standard of living a person is accustomed to and no fixed straight
jacket formula would be laid down as to what amount would be fair,
adequate and reasonable. Reasonableness, fairness and adequacy of
the monetary relief in terms of Section 20(2) of DV Act would vary
from person to person and from facts to facts of each case.
56. It is nobody’s case that monetary condition of the family
of Vineet have gone down severally since the dispute arose. It has
already been found above that Vineet is not in a private job as is being
claimed by him. It has also been noted above that Kiran Anand and
Son HUF is in existence and it can be inferred that it has sufficient
money because a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/ was given to Aakanksha from
this HUF and in order to recover the said amount from Aakanksha a
litigation is stated to be pending. All the respondents are silent about
this HUF and the Court would not be wrong in inferencing that Vineet
is one of the coparcenor of this HUF being son of Kiran Anand in
whose name the HUF is in existence and it can also be inferred that
Kiran Anand is Karta of this HUF. It was pleaded that Vineet Anand Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 45 of 51 has been disowned but nothing has been stated as to whether Kiran
Anand and Son HUF has also been brought to an end by separating
Vineet Anand and partitioning the properties of HUF. It has already
been found herein above that Vineet Anand and respondents have
concealed their individual, separate and joint income but did not deny
the high standard of living of themselves i.e. respondents no. 2, 3 and
4 and that of Aakanksha. Hence, the Court is left with no option but to
assume the income of Vineet Anand and that of Kiran Anand and Son
57. How to assess the income of Vineet Anand and that of
the HUF. Kiran Anand and other respondents did not place on record
anything to show that amount of Rs 50,000/ which was paid to
Aakanksha per month as pocket money was paid to her from personal
account and income of respondent No.2 Kiran Anand. Further, since
Kiran and Son HUF is in existence therefore it means that household
expenses are being maintained from this HUF. Hence, no option is left
with Court but to assume that this amount of Rs 50,000/ pm was paid
to Aakanksha from Kiran Anand and Son HUF. Generally pocket
money given to concerned person are very small fraction of house hold
expenses i.e. to say even much below 1% of house hold expenses. Now
if Aakanksha was given Rs. 50,000/ pm as pocket money then one can
easily estimate what could be monthly house hold expense of the
58. It has been seriously contended that Aakanksha is
earning Rs 25,000/ pm by giving tuitions and it has been alternatively Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 46 of 51 argued that she being qualified cannot afford to sit idle as law does
not favour the same as was held in Smt. Mamta Jaiswal (supra) and thus she is not entitled to maintenance. Nothing was placed on
record to suggest that she had ever worked as teacher in Lancer
Convent School before marriage. The statement of various bank
account of Aakanksha also do not borne out any source of income
either before marriage or after marriage. Nothing has been placed on
record to suggest that she is giving tuition. In any case even if it is
assumed that she is earning Rs 25,000/ pm from tuition then also
said amount is not sufficient even for her own maintenance given the
standard of living she was accustomed and then law entitles her to
seek maintenance so that she could reach that standard of living to
which she was accustomed to.
59. It is the contention of the Ld Counsels for respondents
that onus is upon Aakanksha to bring sufficient material to infer
income of the Vineet. It is true that prima facie onus is upon
Aakanksha to bring sufficient material on record to help this Court
assess the income of Vineet but such proposition is not applicable
when there is admission of payment of Rs 50,000/ pm. as pocket
money and existence of an HUF coupled with hiding of earning of
HUF and documents of business of manufacturing of cooker and its
parts. The details of earing of HUF, business of manufacturing of
cooker, its composition etc are within the special knowledge of the
respondents but they failed to place on record these important
important information with documents and thus an adverse inference
is to be drawn against them as discussed above.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 47 of 51
60. So far as the contention that there is prima facie
material on record that Aakanksha herself had left the matrimonial
home and was not thrown out of the matrimonial home, is concerned
suffice it to say that expression “throwing out of the matrimonial
home” does not mean only physical throwing out. It also includes
makings such an environment within the matrimonial home which
makes it difficult for the lady to live in matrimonial home. Hence, only
on the basis of CCTV footage it cannot be concluded that whether such
an environment existed or not. Such fact has got to be decided on the
basis of evidence led by the parties. Hence, the allegations made by
Aakanksha Anand in her application are prima facie sufficient to say
that commission of domestic violence upon the petitioner is made out
and therefore, the contention that since prima facie there is no
domestic violence upon Aakanksha, her prayer for monetary relief
cannot be entertained is untenable.
61. Now keeping at the center the sum of Rs 50,000/ per
month given as pocket money to Aakanksha and taking this amount
to be 1% of the total expenditure of house hold expense than the house
hold expensed of Kiran Anand and Sons HUF comes to Rs 50,00,000/
pm and keeping in mind that only 2/3rd of the income is spent as
house hold expenses then monthly income becomes around Rs
75,00,000/ pm and if pocket money was 5% of the total house hold
expense then corresponding figures becomes Rs 10,00,000/ and Rs.
15,00,000/ pm and therefore claim of Rs 3,00,000/ pm does not
appear to be unreasonable and unrealistic.
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 48 of 51
62. But keeping in mind that income of Vineet and his
HUF is being assessed only on the basis of monthly pocket money
given to Aakanksha and also keeping in mind that certain amount of
guess work is inevitable when there is concealment of income an
attempt should be made to be on the lower side of all the calculation.
Given the standard of living Aakanksha and her child were
accustomed to, the cost of decent 2BHK accommodation in decent
residential colony would cost minimum of Rs 25,000/ to 35,000/ pm,
education expenses as on day in private convent school is Rs 10,000 to
15,000/ pm including transportation charges. Here, it is to be kept in
mind that parents being the overall protector of the child have to bear
entire expense of education. They cannot absolve themselves by
providing only tuition fees as many employer does in case of its
employee. Electricity expenses would be around 2,500/ to Rs. 3,000/
pm, one 24 hours domestic help would cost Rs. 18,000/ pm, one driver
would cost 15,000/ pm, food, grocery, milk etc. of her standard would
cost Rs. 25,000/ pm, fuel for car and its maintenance would cost
around around Rs. 6,000/ pm to 7,000/ pm, clothings etc would cost
Rs 10,000/ a month given the prices of decent ladies cloth starting at
Rs. 2,500/ pm, medical expense would be around Rs. 5000/ pm given
the fees of established private doctor on an average being Rs 1,000/
per visit and cost of test if prescribed are also high. Person of the
standard of parties to the present petition often visit mall, multiplex,
parties at highfi restaurants/hotel, costly costumes, toiletries,
perfumes, slippers, shoes etc. Thus keeping in mind all these and
keeping in mind that figures cannot be reached with mathematical Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 49 of 51 calculation and precision as that is not possible given the variety of
choices and cost of articles available in the market, this Court is of the
view that a sum of Rs 1,25,000/ pm would be necessary for
Aakanksha and her child to maintain same level of living they were
accustomed to prior to dispute arose between the parties. This
amount would be needed by her even if she earns Rs 25,000/ pm from
tuition though such claim of the respondents stands rejected as
nothing was placed on record where from it could be inferred that
Aakanksha is earning.
63. Hence, in view of the the above discussion and
reasoning, appeal filed by Aakanksha Anand bearing No. 190/2018
titled as Aakanksha Anand v. Vineet Anand & ors.” is accepted and
appeal filed by the Vineet Anand bearing No. 10/2019 titled as “Vineet
Anand v. Aakanksha Anand & Ors.” is hereby dismissed and order of
the Ld Trial Court dt. 29.11.2018 is modified and respondents no. 1
being husband and respondent no. 2 being Karta of abovenamed HUF
are directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,25,000/ pm as interim maintenance
for maintenance of Aakanksha Anand and her daughter Saanvika
Anand, from the date of application under Section 23(2) DV Act till the
final disposal of the petition under Section 12 of DV Act.
64. Amount awarded in any other proceeding shall be
adjusted. The interim maintenance amount shall be payable on 10 th of
every month and arrears of maintenance shall be cleared within six
Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 50 of 51
65. Nothing discussed herein shall tantamount to any
opinion on the merits of the case.
66. Signed copy of the judgement be placed in each file.
67. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of this
judgement placed on it.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed HARISH by HARISH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2019.08.29 15:02:37 +0530 Announced in open court (HARISH KUMAR)
(Judgement contains 51 pages) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE – 03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI / 29.08.2019 Crl. Appeal No. 190/2018 Aakanksha Anand vs. Vineet Anand
Crl. Appeal No. 10/2019 Vineet Anand vs. Aakanksha Anand Page No. 51 of 51