Husband challenged dismissal of his DV Act appeal against reinstatement of interim maintenance awarded to wife after he failed to file income affidavit and clear arrears despite repeated directions. The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition at notice stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DHEERAJ BHATIA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Joshini Tuli with Mr. Joginder Tuli, Mr. Shrikant Sharma and Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Advocates.
versus
SIMRAN BHATIA@VIBHA KHURANA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Sindwani with Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 27.09.2024
By way of the present petition filed under sections 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitioner (husband) impugns order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court in CA No. 23/2024, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket District Courts, New Delhi has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), by which the appellant had challenged order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Saket District Courts, New Delhi in Ct. Case No. 43436/2019.
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024
Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
vide order dated 21.01.2022 the learned Magistrate re-affirmed order dated 15.09.2021, noting that since the petitioner had failed to clear the arrears of maintenance which was one of the conditions for setting-aside order dated 15.09.2021, the said order deserved to be reinstated.
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024
Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
and the respondent has been separated from the petitioner (husband) since 01.12.2019.
7.2. By order dated 29.07.2020, the learned Magistrate had directed the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance to the respondent in the sum of Rs.41,391/- per month, which order was subsequently modified vide judgment dated 11.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Court in an appeal, whereby the adinterim maintenance was reduced to Rs. 38,400/- per month.
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
Page 3 of 8
the arguments afresh on the question of awarding interim maintenance. The learned Sessions Court had issued a further direction to the petitioner (appellant before the learned Sessions Court) to clear the arrears of ad-interim maintenance from April 2021 to December 2021 and had clarified that the settingaside of order dated 15.09.2021 was subject to the petitioner clearing the arrears of ad-interim maintenance as directed by the court.
7.6. It transpired however, that the income affidavit was not filed by the petitioner despite the aforementioned orders; and in this backdrop, by way of the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court has dealt-with and rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the award of interim maintenance, with the following essential reasoning :
“7. Vide order dated 15.09.2021, Ld. Trial Court decided the interim maintenance of Rs. 1,80,000/- per month in favour of the respondent without considering the income affidavits of the appellant. While passing the interim maintenance vide order dated 15.09.2021, Ld. Trial Court have succinctly brought the conduct of the appellant on the record, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“None has appeared on behalf of the R-1 since morning despite repeated calls. R-1 had entered his appearance through his counsel on 22.06.2020 for the first time. On 13.07.2020, he was granted time of two more weeks to file his income affidavit by way of last and final opportunity. On 25.07.2020 he was again given another opportunity to file his income affidavit. Since the R- 1 failed to file the same despite repeated opportunities, an adinterim maintenance order was passed in favour of the complainant and the R-1 was again directed to file his income affidavit. The R-1 again failed to file the same on 13.08.2020 and again on 15.09.2020. He was again granted time of one more week to file his income affidavit. Even on the next date of hearing
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
Page 4 of 8
i.e., 22.09.2020, the R-1 failed to file his income affidavit. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 27.11.2020, 24.12.2020 and 06.02.2021 as the file had been called by the Ld. Appellate Court. The matter was again adjourned on 19.04.2021 and 29.05.2021 on account of second lockdown.
“Till today, the R-1 has not filed his income affidavit. None has even appeared on behalf of the R-1 since morning. It is apparent that the absence on behalf of the R-1 is for no other reason other than to delay the disposal of the application of the complainant for interim maintenance and to avoid furnishing the details required in the income affidavit.
“In Rajnesh Vs Neha (Crl. Appeal No. 730 of 2020) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that ". "… … the R-1 must submit the reply with Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Court may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of Disclosure of assets and liabilities to une (sic : one) R-1. If the R- 1 delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for dete (sic : that) purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the R-1, if the conduct is found to be willful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record.
“The conduct of the R-1 is undoubtedly willful and contumacious in delaying the disposal of the application of the complainant for interim maintenance. His failure to file his income affidavit shows that he believes that non-filing of his income affidavit, he shall be gaining from the non-disclosure of his income from various sources … ….”
“8. The appellant appeared for the first time before the Ld. Trial court on 22.06.2020 and till the passing of order dated 15.09.2021 he did not file his income affidavit. As per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajneesh Vs. Neha (Crl. Appeal No.730 of 2020), the income affidavit has to be filed
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024
Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
within maximum 4 weeks, but despite passing of more than 15 months, appellant did not file his income affidavit.
“9. Against the order dated 15.09.2021, appellant preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 99/2021 before the L.d. Sessions Court which was allowed and directions was given to the appellant to clear the complete arrears of ad-interim maintenance and to file his income affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 17.01.2022. But despite the directions of the Ld. Appellate Court, the appellant did not clear the complete arrears of ad interim maintenance and even did not file the income affidavit. Perusal of order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Ld. Appellate Court in Crl. Rev. No. 99/2021, shows that it is clearly mentioned in the order that the setting aside of the order dated 15.09.2021 is subject to clearance of ad interim maintenance arrears, so, it was a conditional order.
“10. The order dated 14.12.2021, passed by the L.d. Appellate Court in Crl. Rev. No. 99/2021 was a conditional order and as the conditions imposed by the order was not adhered with by the appellant, therefore, the order dated 14.12.2021 could not be implemented and correctly Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.01.2022 closed the opportunity of appellant to file his income affidavits.
“11. The appellant should be aware that in case he is not following the directions given by the Appellate Court then Ld. Trial Court has no other option except to comply with the direction of the Appellate Court. Therefore, this court does not find any infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the order dated 21.1.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024
Page 6 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
“12. As regarding the condonation of delay, as per Sec. 29 of the Act, appeal has to be preferred within 30 days. The impugned order was passed on 21.01.2022, therefore, appeal should have been filed on 20.02.2022 but present appeal has been filed on 17.01.2024 i.e. after a delay of almost two years. The only reason given by the appellant for delay is that they were referred to the mediation for settlement first by the Hon'ble High Court and the said mediation continued from 19.01.2022 till 07.10.2022 and after that they were referred to mediation by Saket court in execution proceedings and same kept pending from 15.03.2021 to 06.07.2023. Even if, court does not consider the period spent in the mediation proceedings by both the parties even then, appeliant got almost 5 months time between ending of mediation proceeding in Delhi High Court Mediation Center and starting of Mediation proceedings in Saket Court and almost 6 months to file the appeal after the end of mediation proceedings in the Saket court. No explanation has come on record from the side of the appellant for not preferring the appeal in the above-mentioned two periods of 5 months and 6 months respectively.”
(underscoring supplied; bold in original)
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024
Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
left alone to take-care of herself as well as her 02 minor children who are now about 09 years and 14 years of age. He submits that the petitioner has failed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1.80 lacs as awarded; and is today in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 80 lacs, which the petitioner owes to the respondent.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 ds
CRL.REV.P. 506/2024
Page 8 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:36:31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 29 DV Act on merits and for delay against reinstatement of interim maintenance of Rs.1,80,000 per month.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order in revisional jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dheeraj Bhatia
Simran Bhatia @ Vibha Khurana
Anup Jairam Bhambhani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
