$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026 + CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 & CRL.M.A. 19483/2024 ANURAG MANOHAR KANKERWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocate.

versus SOHAM RANI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunnirudh Kumar and Ms.

Ruby Rani, Advocates CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner-husband seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 01.04.2024 [hereafter „impugned judgment‟], passed by the learned ASJ-05, Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Appellate Court‟], in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2023 preferred under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter „PWDV Act‟], whereby the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court)- 01, Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in Ct. Cases 2271/2020, instituted by the respondent-wife under Section

12 of the PWDV Act, was partially modified.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnised on 13.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two male children, „S‟ and „A‟, were born on 25.08.2015 and 06.05.2017 respectively. However, owing to matrimonial discord between the parties, their relationship deteriorated and they started living separately in March 2019. It is stated that the elder son „S‟ is presently in the custody of the petitioner-husband, whereas the younger son „A‟ is in the custody of the respondent-wife.

3. Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint dated 31.08.2020 filed by the respondent-wife, FIR bearing No. 265/2020 was registered for offences under Sections 34/406/498A/354A of the IPC.

4. Subsequently, on 20.10.2020, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the petitioner- husband and his family members, levelling several allegations of mental, physical and economic abuse, including allegations of beating and abusing her, levelling false allegations against her, and the petitioner-husband engaging in illicit relationships with other women. It was further alleged that in March 2019 she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and, since then, has been residing at her parental home along with the minor son „A‟. It was also stated that the petitioner-husband was employed as a Junior Engineer in MCD and was earning about ₹80,000/- per month as salary, along with rental income of about ₹1,00,000/- per month.

5. During the course of proceedings, the statement of the respondent-wife was recorded by the learned Trial Court on 14.03.2022, wherein she stated that a property in Rohini had been purchased in her name by the petitioner-husband in the year 2018 for about ₹40,00,000/-, for which the petitioner-husband had arranged the finances. She further stated that after their separation in April 2019, the said property was sold with her consent and she received about ₹40,00,000/- as sale consideration in her bank account. Out of the said amount, about ₹20,00,000/- was utilised towards repayment of a bank loan and the remaining amount was withdrawn by her. She further stated that the said amount had been spent by her during the years 2020 and 2021 towards the upkeep of herself and the minor child in her custody, and that about ₹2,00,000/- was still available with her for meeting her expenses.

6. Eventually, vide order dated 28.02.2023, the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay ₹15,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and ₹10,000/- per month to the minor son „A‟ as interim maintenance, with effect from the date of passing of the said order. The learned Trial Court further observed that the sale consideration amount of ₹20,00,000/-, which had admittedly been received by the respondent-wife, shall be adjusted towards the