CRL.REV.P.(MAT.)/420/2025 of ROHIN PAUL Vs SAPNA PAUL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Through:None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

11.09.2025

1.The present petition under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 397/401 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[2]) assails judgment dated 07[th]July, 2025 passed by ASJ-02(South East), Saket Courts, Delhi. By the impugned judgment, the AppellateCourt affirmed the entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to monetary relief underthe Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,[3]and fixedmaintenance at INR 75,000/- per month.

2.The Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent, fact not in dispute.They were married on 10[th]February, 1991, and from this marriage, theyhave son who has attained majority.

3.Due to temperamental differences, the parties have separated. Thedisputes between them surfaced on 23[rd]November, 2009, when RespondentNo. 1 lodged complaint before the CAW Cell. Shortly thereafter, on 18[th]

1 “BNSS”2 “Cr.P.C.”

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

December, 2009, she instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Actbefore the Mahila Court, seeking, inter alia, maintenance. By order dated16[th]November, 2016, the Trial Court directed the Petitioner to pay sum ofINR 1,00,000 per month to the Respondent, inclusive of maintenance fortheir then minor son, and further awarded compensation of INR 5,00,000.Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60/2017 on8[th]February, 2017 before the Sessions Court. Parallelly, he also instituted apetition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, which culminated in decree of divorce on 10[th]December, 2020.

4.In the meantime, by order dated 1[st]November, 2019, the SessionsCourt allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s decision, and remandedthe matter for reconsideration. Respondent No. 1 challenged that remandorder by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 224/2021 before this court.On 19[th]January, 2024, this Court allowed the revision, set aside the remandorder of 1[st]November, 2019, and directed the Sessions Court to decideCriminal Appeal No. 60/2017 on merits. By the same order, interimmaintenance was fixed at INR 50,000 per month, payable with effect from16[th]December, 2009 until 1[st]November, 2019, subject to adjustment againstsums already paid.

5.Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Sessions Court reheard thematter and, by judgment dated 7[th]July, 2025, dismissed Criminal AppealNo. 60/2017, thereby affirming the Respondent’s entitlement and fixingmaintenance at INR 75,000 per month.

6.The Petitioner aggrieved with the aforenoted outcome has filed theinstant petition. Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the Judgment

3 “the DV Act”

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

of this Court in Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra,[4]and in YashwaniVerma vs. Virender Verma[5]and advances the following submissions:6.1.The Appellate Court erred in awarding maintenance of INR 75,000/-per month, overlooking the settled proposition of law that, in the absence ofany dependent child, the wife is ordinarily entitled to one-third of thehusband’s net disposable income. Since the parties’ son is now 35 years oldand earning, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Applying the ratio inAnnurita Vohra, the maintenance could certainly not have been fixed atINR 75,000/-.

6.2.Petitioner’s current income position has been grossly misconstrued.He has been associated with Showtime Events Pvt. Ltd. merely in anadvisory role since 2021, and his remuneration has remained modest INR59,086/- per month for the financial year 2021-22, and INR 1,00,000/- permonth in 2022-23 and 2023-24. The Appellate Court, however, proceededon the premise that the Petitioner continues to command the same highincome as in the past, without due regard to the limited and reduced natureof his present engagement.

6.3.The Respondent possesses independent means and earning capacity,having been employed on several occasions and deriving rental income. Bydisregarding these aspects, the Appellate Court has effectively overlookedher duty of candid disclosure and placed the entire financial burden upon thePetitioner.

6.4.The marriage between the parties was dissolved by decree of divorceon 10[th]December, 2020. In such circumstances, awarding substantial

4 2004 (110) DLT 5465 MAT. APP. (FC) No. 174/2023

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

maintenance to the Respondent for the period post-dissolution, withoutproof of inability to maintain herself, is contrary to settled law whichrecognises that the obligation to maintain an ex-spouse is conditioned bydemonstrated dependency.

6.5.The impugned order rests on assumptions about the Petitioner’sfinancial status without any cogent material. No exercise was undertaken tocompute his disposable income after deducting statutory liabilities, taxes,and reasonable personal expenses, which is mandatory step while fixingmaintenance.

6.6.The Appellate Court’s conclusions about Petitioner’s affluent lifestyleand capacity to pay are speculative and unsupported by contemporaneousmaterial. In the absence of documentary evidence regarding his assets orstandard of living, such findings are conjectural and cannot sustain an awardof maintenance at the impugned level.

7.The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The AppellateCourt, in compliance with directions of this Court by order dated 1[st]January,2024, has held as under:

“65. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered viewthat the case of the complainant/wife stands proved and that theappellant/husbandhadcommitteddomesticviolenceuponthecomplainant/wife. The different pleas taken by the appellant/husbandherein have been discussed above and have been discarded by theundersigned. Further, in the present matter, the aforesaid pleas raisedby the appellant/husband herein were required to be establishedduring trial. The appellant/husband had the proper opportunities toprove the aforesaid claims by leading evidence or by cross-examiningcomplainant by putting on record school fees receipts, tuition feesreceipts, uniforms receipts, books receipts and other relevant recordswhich were allegedly paid by appellant/husband for the welfare of theminor child as claimed by him in the appeal filed. However, it was theappellant/husband who failed to appear before the trial court andcross-examine the complainant in respect to the same, and therefore,

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

was proceeded ex parte and it would be suffice to observe that thereare no palpable reasons to disbelieve the version of complainant bythe Ld. Trial Court in the absence of the appellant/husband appearingbefore it. Therefore, the aforesaid claims of appellant/husband is oflittle relevance and hence discarded. Ld. Trial Court had passed awell reasoned order by considering carefully the evidence on recordand also after taking into consideration the material placed on recordby both the parties.

66.Perusal of the record shows that the appellant/husband had notfiled any financial documents before the Ld. Trial Court and had onlyfiled the written submissions. However, subsequently, the parties hadfiled their financial documents at the stage of appeal.

67. The appellant/husband had filed chart describing the expensesincurred upon the son during the education of child in school andcollege. Alongwith the aforesaid chart the school fee receipts of thechild for the year 2005 to 2007 has been placed on record. In supportof the same the appellant/husband has also filed the school feesschedule of the child while the child was studying at Kodaikanalduring the year 2007-2008 and copy of demand draft pertaining to thepayments made to the aforesaid school by the appellant/husbandduring the aforesaid period. The appellant/husband has also filed thecollege expenses of Uday Paul (son of the parties) while he wasstudying at Delhi College of Art for the year 2011 to 2014 and the feesreceipts of the same. Further the appellant/husband has also placed onrecord the copy of air tickets allegedly book by him for the child forhis travel between Delhi and Pune. With the aforesaid documentsappellant has also placed on record copy of cash memo in his ownname regarding purchase of one laptop in June, 2011, and somemedical bills pertaining to Uday Paul to Holy Family Hospital in theyear 2007. Apart from the aforesaid documents appellant/husband hasalso filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2018-2019,2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, alongwith Form AS,computation and statement of account for his bank account of SouthIndian Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Income from M/s GeminiEnterprise Ltd.

68. It has been argued on behalf of complainant/wife that the perusalof bank account statement of the appellant/husband itself shows thatthe appellant/husband is currently having income from several sourcesand that he was earning salary of Rs. l,00,000/- per month being thedirector in Show Time Events India Pvt. Ltd., further the appellanthave 75% share in the property bearing no.9/1, Kalkaji Extension NewDelhi, 9.97% Shareholding in M/s Showtime Events India Pvt. Ltd.Further, having 25% share holding in the company Mis SFXEntertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd and is also Director. It has alsobeenarguedthattheappellantwasearningasalaryof

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

Rs.45,75,600/being director for M/s Showtime Events for thefinancial year 2014- 2015 i.e. Approximately Rs.3,81,300/- per monthand had profit of Rs.50,83,298/- for the same financial year and hadalso earned profit of Rs.5,06,805/- from the share profit of theaforesaid company, and the same was earned by the appellant even inthe financial year 2017-2018 with slight variations. It has also beenargued that the appellant had concealed his income from GeminiEnterprise and the Bank account statement pertaining to AXIS Bank,South Indian Bank and HDFC Bank show regular income and for thepast three financial year the appellant has earned an amount of Rs.1,64,91,9431- cumulatively from Gemini Enterprises which amounts toRs. 4,58,109/- approx. per month. It is also argued that even today theappellant is earning an amount of Rs.3.75 Lakhs per month.

69. On the other hand, complainant/wife has also placed on record herfinancial documents including certified copies of the bank accountstatement pertaining to ICICI Bank for the period between 01.04.2012to 01.04.2016 and 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024.

70. Upon perusal of the financial documents of the parties, it isobserved that the complainant/wife was maintaining only one bankaccount in ICICI Bank Branch Nehru Place, Delhi, and the creditamount during the period 01.04.2012 to 01.04.2016 is meager rangingfrom small deposits of Rs. 14,100/-. The salary credited to the accountof complainant/wife during her tenure employment is of Rs. 50,400/-,and apart from the aforesaid deposits the account statements do notreflectdepositofanybigamountstothecreditofthecomplainant/wife. Further, the bank account statement pertaining tothe complainant wife during the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024 alsoshows deposits made by her son in her account for her expensesranging from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- on different occasions andapart from the deposit made by her son there are no deposits in heraccount from any other sources.

71.Theperusalofthebankaccountstatementoftheappellant/husband show that during the year March, 2021 to March,2024 that income has received from Show Time of Rs. 59,086/- everymonth in the AXIS Bank account which increased to Rs. 1 Lakh on02.06.2022 (as salary from Show Time), received by him throughNEFT every month, and further, an amount of Rs.50,000/- receivedfrom Gemini on 26.06.2023, and Rs.5 Lakhs on 08.07.2023, Rs.5Lakhs on 09.07.2023, Rs. 5 Lakh on 10.07.2023, and the same showsan amount of credit in his account for the year between 01.04.2023 to31.03.2024, sum of Rs. 2911185/-.

72. The perusal of the bank account statement of South Indian Bankfor the period between 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024 shows that anamount of Rs.3J 8,000/- received by him on 09.08.2021. An amount ofRs. 3.78 Lakh was received on 03.03.2022, Rs.68,500/- received on

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

28.09.2022, Rs.3,78,000/- received on 03.03.2023, Rs. 10 Lakhreceivedon03.07.2023,Rs.5Lakhreceivedon07.07.2023,08.07.2023 and 10.07.2023 from Gemini and Rs.37 Lakh received on01.02.2024 and the cumulative amount credited in the bank account ofSouth Indian Bank for the aforesaid period is Rs. 88,21,125/-.

73. The bank account statement of HDFC Bank of the appellant showsthat during the year March, 2021 to March 2024 there is deposit ofRs.25,000/- from Gemini Enterprise on 28.12.2021, Rs.30,000/- on08.02.2022, Rs.25,0001- on 15.02.2022, and cash deposit from GeminiEnterprise again on 27.02.2022, 29.03.2022, 06.10.2022, 20.11.2022and many other deposits even of bigger amount like Rs.5 Lakh on02.07.2023 and 03.07.2023. The aforesaid account statement alsoshows total credit amount in the aforesaid bank account of theappellant to be Rs.27,664,469/-.

74. The evaluation of the aforesaid financial record pertaining to boththe parties shows that there are ample number of deposits in the bankaccount of the appellant into huge amounts as compared to thecomplainant/wife. Though it has been stated by the appellant that hewas paying for the education expenses of the child between the parties,there is no whisper of any contribution or any financial assistancetowards the complainant or any other expenses of the child during theseparation between the parties for the year 2004 and during thependency of the complaint before the trial court between December,2009 to November, 2016 when the matter was finally decided by theLd. Trial Court. It cannot be ignored that apart from the educationalexpenses towards the child there are other expenses incurred for thewell being of the child like clothing, extracurricular activities, medicalailments,shoes,books,technologicaldevices,tuition,food,nourishment etc. which are required to bring up child which perhapswas taken care by the complainant/wife alone.75. In my considered view, the Ld. Trial Court has meticulouslycalculated the aforesaid maintenance amount to the complainant andher minor child in its impugned order dated 16.11 .2016. In view of thefinancial documents, filed by both the parties, it is certain that theappellant was having stable income during the period 2009 to 2016for an amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs per month. Further, for the periodduring 2016 to 2021, the appellant financial documents are notavailable on record but it can be assessed that he continued to havethe aforesaid income of Rs.3.5 Lakh per month. Also from thedocuments of the appellant for the period between 2021 to 2024 alsoshows that he has been earning an income from different sources ofRs.3 Lakhs per month. Despite several opportunities to the appellanthe initially did not disclose regarding the bank account held by him inhis name and the same was furnished only upon the application movedon behalf of the complainant U/s 91 Cr.P.c. The appellant has claimed

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

in response to the aforesaid application that he had resigned fromGemini Enterprise in the August, 2024, however, during the aforesaidperiod appellant has been continuously receiving the amount from theaforesaid company, which is substantiated from the bank accountstatement annexed by the appellant.

76. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by Ld. Trial Court isadequate, not on higher side and has been granted after consideringthe conduct of appellant/husband in shirking his responsibility ofmaintaining his wife and minor child during the period 2009-2016 andthat the appellant/husband is under legal obligation to maintain hiswife and minor child, to take care of them and also to give decentliving to them by providing basic necessities.

77. Therefore, considering that the litigation between the parties hasbeen pending since the year 2009 and with the passage of time theappellant may not be physically in the capacity to have the sameincome which he was drawing in 2009, it cannot be said that he is notearning now or is not having any financial resources as the bankaccount statement of the appellant are self explanatory. The bankaccount statement and financial record of the appellant clearly showsthatappellantwashavingfinancialresourcesmore thanthecomplainant/ wife and he during the year 2009 and onward did notpay maintenance towards the complainant/wife and the child. Toconcludeitisassessedfromtherecord,theincomeoftheappellant/husband was Rs.3.5 Lakhs per month from the year 2009 till2016 and during the aforesaid period the child was seeking educationand had not completed the same, and therefore, both the complainantand the child is entitled for maintenance. Therefore, for the aforesaidperiod between 2009 till 2016 the maintenance of Rs. 1 Lakh permonth granted to the complainant by the Ld. Trial Court for herselfand the minor child cumulatively has been rightly granted. Further thecomplainant was granted compensation amount of Rs.5 Lakhs U/S 22of PWDV Act and the same has been correctly decided by the Ld. TrialCourt.

78. Further, for the period January, 2017 onward, since the child hadcompleted the education, only complainant/wife is entitled formaintenanceandconsideringthefinancialincomeoftheappellant/husband can be assessed to be Rs.3 Lakhs per month, thecomplainant/wife is entitled for maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month.79. I am of the considered opinion that appellant Rohin Paul, iscapable of paying the maintenance as awarded above.80. Present Appeal, therefore stands dismissed and disposed offaccordingly.Anyamountpaidtowardsmaintenancetothecomplainant/wife till date in any proceeding and in present mattershall be adjusted towards the decreetal amount.TCR be sent back along copy of this judgment.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.”

8.The challenge raised by the Petitioner rests on two prongs: first, thatthe Appellate Court erred in assessing his income; and second, that theRespondent is qualified and self-sufficient, thereby disentitled to claimmaintenance.

9.On the first limb, the burden lay firmly on the Petitioner todemonstrate, through complete financial disclosure, any genuine reductionin his earning capacity. Matters relating to one’s own income, liabilities, andassets fall are matters of special knowledge under Section 106 of the IndianEvidence Act, 1872, and any suppression or selective disclosure justifies anadverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (g). Moreover, the materialon record, discloses contrary picture: sustained and sizeable credits intomultiple bank accounts, as enumerated in paragraphs 71 to 73 of theimpugned judgment, including regular monthly salary from ShowtimeEvents, repeated large inflows from Gemini Enterprises, often in lakhs, andother substantial deposits. Such transactions are wholly inconsistent with theplea of financial penury, sought to be advanced.

10.More significantly, several of these accounts came to light only on theRespondent’s application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., thereby revealingthat the Petitioner initially withheld disclosure. This conduct furtherundermines his plea and entitles the Court to draw an adverse inference.Thus, the Appellate Court was justified in assessing the Petitioner’s capacitywith reference to his last known substantive earnings and consistent bankingtrail, rather than resting on his self-serving statements. The Court’sestimation of approximately INR 3-3.5 lakh per month as his income across

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

different periods is therefore not speculative but conservative inferencedrawn from his own financial documents.

11.On the second limb, the contention that the respondent is self-sufficient does not withstand scrutiny. The Appellate Court carefullyexamined her financial documents and found only one ICICI account,reflecting modest and sporadic deposits, with occasional transfers from theadult son. No reliable proof of steady income stream or rental receipts of amagnitude capable of sustaining her living expenses was placed on record.At best, the material demonstrates intermittent support, not self-sustainingfinancial position.

12.In any event, the legal principle is well settled: the enquiry is notwhether the wife has some income, but whether she possesses adequate andindependent means to live with dignity, in manner broadly commensuratewith the status she enjoyed during the marriage. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai,[6]the Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of maintenance is to preventvagrancy and destitution, ensuring that deserted wife does not suffer fallinto penury. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan,[7]the Court reaffirmedthat healthy, able-bodied husband cannot shirk responsibility on the plea oflimited means, and that the standard of maintenance must allow the wife tolive with dignity. Most recently, in Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg,[8]theCourt emphasized that the obligation to provide for the wife and children issacrosanct. Even if the wife earns something, that does not absolve thehusband unless her income is sufficient to meet her needs at comparable

6 (2008) 2 SCC 316

7 (2015) 5 SCC 705

8 (2022) 4 SCC 443

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

standard.[9]

13.The statutory framework under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act alsoreinforcesthisprinciplebyexpresslypermittingmonetaryreliefnotwithstandingsomeindependentincome,wheresuchincomeisinsufficient. On the factual plane, the record demonstrates that while thePetitioner points to making certain payments towards the education of theirson, the day-to-day costs of running the household and caring for the childduring the years of separation were shouldered by the Respondent alone.The Petitioner’s focus on isolated contributions cannot absolve him of thebroader obligation to provide sustained financial support.

14.Reliance on the decision in Annurita Vohra is misplaced. The “one-third of net disposable income” guideline is broad principle and not rigidrule. It must be applied having regard to the facts of each case, including thepayer’s actual or potential earning capacity, established lifestyle, and thereasonable needs of the claimant. Where party withholds full particulars,the Court is not constrained to rely upon the theoretical figures projected,but may draw inferences from the surrounding material to arrive at fairassessment. The onus lies on the payer to prove deductions, taxes, statutoryliabilities, and reasonable personal expenses. In the present case, despiteample opportunity, the Petitioner has failed to provide transparent,comprehensive statement of income and deductible outgoings. Based on theAppellate Court’s conservative assessment of monthly earning capacity ofINR 3,00,000, the maintenance award of INR 75,000 per month amounts to25%, which aligns with the principle enunciated in Annurita Vohra andcannot be considered excessive. The majority status of the son only removes

9 Rajnesh v Neha and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025

his entitlement and does not extinguish the Respondent’s independent claim.15.The argument that post-divorce maintenance is impermissible alsocannot prevail. Proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were institutedlong before the decree; monetary relief under Section 20 can be moulded toredress economic abuse and secure sustenance even after dissolution, wheredependency persists.[10]

16.Inanycase,consideringthebroaderprinciplesgoverningmaintenance, divorced wife who lacks adequate means cannot be deprivedof relief solely on the ground of divorce. On the facts of the present case,including the long duration of the marriage, the prolonged litigationconcerning separation since 2009, the opaque financial disclosures by thepetitioner, and the limited income of the respondent, the fixation ofmaintenance at INR 75,000 per month by the Appellate Court cannot bedeemed perverse or legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the order of theAppellate Court calls for no interference.

17.In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed along withpending applications.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J

10 Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 420/2025