$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 19.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026 + CRL.M.C. 6628/2022 & CRL.M.A. 25818/2022 DINESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: None.

versus NEETI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Adv. along with respondent no. 1.

+ CRL.M.C. 3998/2023 NEETI .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner with her counsel Mr.

Vikram Saini, Adv.

versus DINESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. These cross-petitions preferred by the husband and the wife against a common order are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. In these petitions, the parties have challenged the judgment dated 17.10.2022 [hereafter „impugned judgment‟] passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Appellate Court‟], in Crl. Appeal No. 02/2022 filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter „PWDV Act‟]. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Court awarded total interim maintenance in the sum of ₹13,000/- to the respondent-wife and the two minor children in her custody, thereby modifying the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned MM, Mahila Court-02, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in Ct.

Cases No. 13059/2019.

3. In CRL.M.C. 6628/2022 and CRL.M.C. 3998/2023, the husband and the wife, respectively, have assailed the impugned judgment. While the husband contends that the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Appellate Court is arbitrary and excessive, the wife submits that the said amount is meagre and not commensurate with the financial status of the husband.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08.04.2014 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the said wedlock, two daughters, „P‟ and „K‟, were born on 11.01.2015 and 11.10.2016 respectively. The parties, however, separated in April 2016, when the wife was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial home.

5. In April 2017, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], being MT No. 182/2017, seeking maintenance for herself and the two minor children. In the said proceedings, after taking into account the admitted income of ₹14,000/- per month of the husband, the concerned Family Court granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month to the wife and the minor children vide order dated

22.06.2019.

6. Soon thereafter, on 27.06.2019, the wife also filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the husband and his family members alleging acts of physical, emotional, sexual and economic abuse, including demands of dowry. Specific allegations were also levelled against the husband and his family members that she was harassed for having given birth to a girl child. It was further alleged that when she became pregnant for the second time, she was forced by her husband and in-laws to undergo a sex determination test. Upon her refusal, she was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial home in April 2016. Thereafter, in October 2016, she gave birth to another girl child. In the said proceedings, she had inter alia sought grant of maintenance to the tune of ₹3,00,000/- per month.

7. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 27.10.2021, assessed the monthly income of the respondent-husband at ₹12,000/- per month, which was his admitted income. The learned Trial Court also took into consideration that ad-interim maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month had already been awarded to the wife and the two minor children under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court granted interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month to the wife and the two minor children. The relevant observations of the learned Trial Court in this regard are as under:

“7. As per th