The court emphasized the importance of voluntary undertakings and established financial capacity in determining interim maintenance under the DV Act.

Headnote:
DV Act - Maintenance - Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 - The court upheld the order for interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and two minor children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court found that the petitioner had given a voluntary undertaking to pay the amount, and the respondent's capacity to pay was established based on properties purchased by the petitioner in her name. The court also emphasized that the interim maintenance is subject to final determination after evidence is led.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner appealed against an order directing him to pay interim maintenance to his wife and two minor children under the DV Act. He argued that he had not given any voluntary undertaking to pay the amount and that the respondent was financially capable due to properties purchased by him in her name.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had given a voluntary undertaking to pay the amount and that the respondent's financial capacity was established based on the properties purchased by the petitioner in her name. The court also emphasized that the interim maintenance is subject to final determination after evidence is led.
Issues: Dispute over voluntary undertaking for interim maintenance and the respondent's financial capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the order for interim maintenance based on the petitioner's voluntary undertaking and the established financial capacity of the respondent.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the order for interim maintenance.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge03(East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.80/2019 wherein the learned Additional Session Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal upholding the judgment dated 16.03.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court -02) East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, directing the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.

2. The present proceedings arise out of an application filed by the respondent/wife under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred at "The DV Act") against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court - 02) East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by an order dated 16.03.2019 passed the following order:

"R-1 has not disputed the marriage with the petitioner as well as the fact of birth of two minor children from this wedlock who are in custody of the Petitioner and has voluntarily undertaken to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner as ad-interim. In view of undertaking of R-1, he is directed to, Pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner towards ad-interim maintenance of the petitioner as well as two minor children from the date of order till further orders.

Counter claim filed by respondent. Copy supplied.

Part arguments heard on maintainability of counter claim filed by respondent seeking relief u/s 18, 19 & 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Let amended income, assets and income affidavit along with all relevant documents be filed by respondent within seven working days.

Put up for arguments on maintainability of counter claim of, respondent on 24.07.2019"

3. This order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the Additional Session Judge, Karkardooma Courts. In the appeal, it is stated as under:

"2. That the Ld. Trial Court while passing impugned order vide dated 16.03.2019 committed an error apparent on the face of record by using the word "Voluntarily? while deciding the ad-interim application, without any express volition of the appellant and without going into the merit of the case.

3. That as mentioned in the impugned order, appellant has not made any undertaking to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner towards ad-interim maintenance of the petitioner as well as two minor children. Respondent is getting a good amount of rent from four properties in her possession, purchased by the husband in name of wife."

4. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner argued that he has not given any voluntary undertaking to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and two minor children. The petitioner has further stated in his appeal that since there was no voluntary undertaking on his part the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had the means to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and whether the respondent/wife was in necessity of that amount. It is also stated that the respondent/wife is getting a good amount of rent from four properties which are in her possession which had been purchased by the petitioner in her name.

5. The learned Additional Session Judge issued notice on the appeal and the Trial Court record were also summoned. The Additional Session Judge noticed that both parties argued in person. The petitioner claimed that he is an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council and the respondent claimed that she has appeared in the final year L.L.B examination. The fact that two children have been born out of the wedlock has not been disputed before the Additional Session Judge. The respondent contended that during the course of the hearing the petitioner herein had voluntarily offered to pay the am

Click Here to Read the rest of this document