Disposed¶12

Pawan Kumar Jain v. Usha Kumari Jain

Delhi HC1 Dec 2025CRL.REV.P.(NI)/139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act; cheque towards arrears of maintenance; husband-wife dispute; conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine Rs. 1,03,200/- deposited in Registry and released to complainant; demand draft name rectification from Usha Kumari Jain to Usha Jain; CRL.REV.P.(NI) 139/2025; appeal CRL. A. 34/2025 dismissed 04.06.2025; JMFC-04 Rohini conviction judgment 17.12.2024; sentencing order 08.01.2025; sentence suspended and bail granted 10.07.2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Vikas Mahajan.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; Registry directed to rectify the payee name on the demand draft from "Usha Kumari Jain" to "Usha Jain"; petition and pending application disposed of. ¶12

Pawan Kumar Jain Vs Usha Kumari Jain — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be given to the Registry to rectify the demand draft issued to the respondent by changing the name from "Usha Kumari Jain" to "Usha Jain" so as to enable her to encash it. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The respondent was directed to deposit the demand draft with the Registry, and the Registry was directed to get the name of the respondent changed from "Usha Kumari Jain" to "Usha Jain" on the demand draft so as to enable encashment.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

While maintaining the conviction under Section 138 NI Act, the petitioner's substantive sentence of two months' simple imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone (about one month), the fine having been paid.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.), order dated 01.12.2025 in CRL.REV.P.(NI) 139/2025 — Pawan Kumar Jain v. Usha Kumari Jain. Revision petition assailing the order dated 04.06.2025 of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, dismissing the petitioner's appeal (CRL. A. 34/2025) against his conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act for a cheque issued towards arrears of maintenance due to the respondent (wife). The petitioner had been convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/Rohini vide judgment dated 17.12.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 08.01.2025 to two months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,03,200/- payable to the complainant (default: six months' simple imprisonment). After the fine was deposited in the High Court Registry and released to the complainant, and about one month of the two-month sentence stood undergone, the Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and disposed of the petition. The Registry was further directed to change the payee name on the demand draft from "Usha Kumari Jain" to "Usha Jain" to enable the respondent to encash it.

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P.(NI) 139/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18442/2025

¶4

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Braj Kishore Roy, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

USHA KUMARI JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jain, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 01.12.2025

¶12

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CRL. A. 34/2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed.

¶13

The parties are husband and wife. The cheque in question was issued by the petitioner (husband) towards the arrears of maintenance, that was due and payable by him to the respondent (wife).

¶14

In a complaint filed by the respondent against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District, Rohini, District Court, New Delhi vide judgment dated 17.12.2024, and vide separate order dated 08.01.2025 he was sentenced to undergo

¶15

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 04/12/2025 at 11:24:38

¶16

simple imprisonment of two months alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,03,200/which was payable to the respondent/complainant and in default of such payment of fine, it was directed that the petitioner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶17

Mr.Braj Kishore Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not able to deposit the fine, the petitioner was taken into custody. However, subsequently, vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed by this Court, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended and he was directed to be released on bail subject to the conditions mentioned therein.

¶18

He submits that the fine amount of Rs. 1,03,200/- was deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court, and this fact is also borne out from the order dated 23.09.2025.

¶19

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant submits that the amount so deposited by the petitioner has also been released by the Registry of this Court to the respondent/complainant.

¶20

He, however, submits that the demand draft that has been issued by the Registry mentions the name of the respondent as “Usha Kumari Jain” whereas the account of the respondent is in the name of “Usha Jain”.

¶21

He urges the Court that necessary directions may be given to the Registry to get the demand draft rectified so as to enable the respondent to encash the same.

¶22

In view of the above, let respondent deposit the demand draft with the Registry of this Court, and the Registry is directed to get the name of the respondent changed from “Usha Kumari Jain” to “Usha Jain” on the said

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 04/12/2025 at 11:24:38

¶25

demand draft.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of about one month, out of substantive sentence of two months. The fine amount also stands paid. On being queried, Mr. Jain submits that he has no objection in case an appropriate order is passed by this Court reducing the sentence of the petitioner.

¶27

In view of the above circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. 12. The petition alongwith pending application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶29

DECEMBER 1, 2025 N.S. ASWAL

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 04/12/2025 at 11:24:38

Pawan Kumar Jain v. Usha Kumari Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Jain v. Usha Kumari Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prince Ptc College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Ankur Tiwari & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Gurcharan Dorgra Vs the State of Delhi & Ors.

Rizwan Alias Mohd. Rizvan Khan Vs the State Govt NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Jain Vs Usha Kumari Jain

Nikhil Gulati Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.