Anurag Manohar Kankarwal vs Soham Rani on 4 April, 2026

April 5, 2026

Delhi High Court

Anurag Manohar Kankarwal vs Soham Rani on 4 April, 2026

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.

SPONSORED

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 1 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

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

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 2 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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
interim maintenance for the period from April 2019, i.e., when she
had left the matrimonial home, till the date of passing of the said
order, which would amount to about ₹40,000/- per month. The

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 3 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
concluding portion of the order reads as under:

“…In view of the above discussion, R1 is directed to make
payment of interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to
complainant and Rs. 10,000/- per month for the minor child
namely Aarav directly into bank account of complainant from
the date of the present order i.e. 28.02.2023 till disposal of the
present complaint or till such time, complainant is entitled to
receive the same or the child attains majority, whichever is
earlier. Interim maintenance is awarded from the date of the
order as the complainant has herself admitted to have received
Rs. 20,00,000/- in lieu of sale consideration which even if
calculated month wise turns out to be approximately Rs.
40,000/- per month since April, 2019. Complainant is already
staying at her matrimonial house and her right to residence was
secured vide order dated 14.03.2023 therefore, relief of
payment of any rental expenses for securing alternate
accommodation is hereby declined. Any amount already paid
in any other proceedings shall be adjusted in the present matter
upon actual payment…”

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2023, the
petitioner-husband preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate
Court. The learned Appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment
dated 01.04.2024, held that the interim maintenance amount of
₹25,000/- per month granted to the respondent-wife and the minor
child ought to have been adjusted against the sum of ₹20,00,000/-
admittedly received by the respondent-wife from the date of
separation, i.e., April 2019, and that the said amount would
accordingly cover the period till December 2025. Thus, it was
directed that the amount of interim maintenance of ₹15,000/- per
month payable to the respondent-wife shall become payable only
with effect from 01.01.2026 till disposal of the petition. However, it
was also observed that since the petitioner-husband had expressed

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 4 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
willingness to pay towards the expenses of the minor son „A‟, the
amount of ₹10,000/- per month as interim maintenance for the minor
child shall be payable from the date of passing of the order dated
28.02.2023. The concluding portion of the order reads as under:

“12. A bare reading of the impugned order would provide that
Ld. Trial Court adopted a self-contradictory approach to adjust
the amount already paid and the one granted prospectively.
Considering the period from April 2019 to February 2023 (both
months inclusive) to be 47 months, respondent/wife utilized
Rs. 42,550/- (approximately) per month on the sustenance of
herself and her one child. Further, Ld. Trial Court after
considering the respective income affidavits of both parties,
assessed the monthly interim maintenance to be Rs. 25,000/-.
There is no reasonable explanation of adopting such an
approach. In the opinion of this Court, respondent/wife and her
child were either entitled to receive interim maintenance of Rs.
40,000/- per month w.e.f April 2019 or they were entitled to
Rs. 25,000/- per month from the said date. While Ld. Trial
Court has passed a reasoned order for deciding the interim
maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month, there is no reason why
an amount much higher than this one was awarded for the
initial years. While the expenses increase with time, growth of
child and due to inflation over the years, the opposite thereof is
hypothetical and unreasonable.

13. In such circumstances, this Court is also of the opinion that
Ld. Trial Court after assessment of interim maintenance
amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month, should have adjusted the
amount of Rs. 20 lacs admittedly received by her, at the rate of
said monthly amount and not otherwise. In that case, Rs.
25,000/- per month w.e.f April 2019 would have served the
respondent/wife and her minor child for a period of 80 months
i.e. till December 2025. Having observed this, it is hereby
ordered that respondent/wife shall not be entitled to any
monthly interim maintenance till 31.12.2025 having utilised
the amount of Rs. 20 lacs received by her in the year 2019, The
amount of interim maintenance of Rs, 15,000/- per month to
respondent/wife shall be payable with effect from ot,O 1,2026
till the disposal of pending complaint before Ld. Trial Court or
till such time, respondent/wife is entitled to received the same,
whichever is earlier.”

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 5 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed before
this Court.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband
argues that the respondent-wife used to subject the petitioner to acts
of domestic violence by allegedly administering poisoned food to
him and by using abusive language on a daily basis. It is further
argued that, while passing the impugned orders, the learned Trial
Court failed to take into consideration the financial liabilities and
expenses of the petitioner, such as payment of home loan instalments,
health insurance, LIC premiums, school fees, medical expenses, and
other necessary expenditures. It is further argued that the learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate the petitioner‟s allegation that the
respondent was in an illicit relationship with her female friend and
that she was allegedly planning and hatching a conspiracy to harm
the petitioner and his family members. It is also contended that the
respondent is a postgraduate with good educational qualifications and
was gainfully employed prior to the separation; however, she has
deliberately left her employment in order to claim maintenance from
the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the
respondent, in her statement recorded on 14.03.2022 before the
learned Trial Court, had admitted that the property bearing No. B-
1128, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi had been purchased by the petitioner
in her name and that the entire sale consideration had been arranged

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 6 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
by the petitioner. It is submitted that the said property was
subsequently sold by the respondent and she received a sum of
₹40,00,000/- as sale consideration, out of which ₹20,00,000/- was
utilised by her towards repayment of the bank loan which had been
availed for purchasing the property, while the remaining ₹20,00,000/-
was retained and utilised by her. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is bearing the expenses of his aged parents as well as the
elder son who is residing with him, and is also contributing towards
the expenses of the younger son „A‟, who is in the custody of the
respondent. It is also argued that the learned Appellate Court, while
deciding the appeal, erred in directing that the amount of
₹20,00,000/- received by the respondent-wife from the sale of the
property be adjusted towards maintenance from the date of separation
of the parties, i.e., April 2019, instead of from the date of filing of the
application under PWDV Act. It is also contended that the learned
Appellate Court erred in granting an additional sum of ₹10,000/- per
month towards maintenance of the minor child, since the amount of
₹25,000/- per month already taken into account for adjustment
included the expenses of the child. On these grounds, it is prayed that
the impugned judgment and orders be set aside.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife argues that the petitioner-husband and his family
members used to harass, humiliate and misbehave with the
respondent-wife despite the fact that sufficient articles, as per the
demands of the petitioner and his family members, had been given by

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 7 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
the family of the respondent at the time of marriage. It is further
argued that in March 2019, the respondent, along with the younger
son, was thrown out of the matrimonial home and, having no other
option, she returned to her parental home along with the minor child.
It is further submitted that the respondent has categorically denied the
allegations regarding any illicit relationship with her friend. Rather, it
is alleged that the petitioner herein had hacked the respondent‟s
mobile phone and used to control and monitor her messages and
calls. It is also submitted that the bank account in question had been
opened by the respondent under pressure from the petitioner and that
even thereafter, the passbook as well as the ATM/Debit card
remained in the possession of the petitioner, who used to operate the
account and carry out transactions on his own. The learned counsel
for the respondent-wife further submits that the respondent had
purchased a property for a sum of about ₹40,00,000/-, for which the
amount had been arranged from multiple sources, i.e. ₹5,00,000/-
from her father-in-law, ₹10,00,000/- from the petitioner, ₹5,00,000/-
from her personal savings, and ₹20,00,000/- through a housing loan.
It is submitted that the said property was subsequently sold for
₹42,00,000/-, out of which ₹20,00,000/- was repaid to the bank
towards the housing loan, ₹5,00,000/- was returned to the father-in-
law, and ₹6,00,000/- was returned to the petitioner, while the
remaining amount was retained by the respondent-wife for the
upkeep and maintenance of herself and the minor child. It is further
contended that after the separation, the petitioner sold the

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 8 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
matrimonial home bearing House No. 315, I Floor, C-2, Yamuna
Vihar, Delhi-110053 on 19.06.2020 without any information,
consent or knowledge of the respondent. It is also alleged that the
petitioner deliberately concealed his permanent address not only from
the respondent but also from the Court, and that only pursuant to
directions of the Court did the petitioner file his present address. It is
lastly submitted that after the separation, the petitioner did not spend
any amount towards the maintenance, residence or welfare of the
respondent-wife and the children, and thus, it is prayed that the
present petition be dismissed, as no interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and order.

11. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the
respondent, and has perused the material available on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

12. The issues that arise for consideration before this Court are: (i)
whether the respondent-wife is entitled to grant of interim
maintenance under the provisions of the PWDV Act in the facts and
circumstances of the present case; (ii) whether the allegations raised
by the petitioner-husband regarding the conduct of the respondent-
wife, including the plea that she was in an illicit relationship and had
subjected him to acts of cruelty, disentitle her from claiming
maintenance; (iii) if the respondent-wife is held entitled to
maintenance, what would be the appropriate quantum of interim
maintenance payable to her and the minor child; and (iv) whether the

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 9 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
learned Appellate Court was justified in directing that the amount of
₹20,00,000/-, admittedly received by the respondent-wife from the
sale of the property, be adjusted towards the interim maintenance
from the date of separation of the parties and in directing payment of
interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife and the minor
child in the manner reflected in the impugned judgment.

13. The first aspect relates to the argument of the petitioner-
husband that he never subjected the respondent-wife to domestic
violence and that, rather, he himself was a victim of domestic
violence at her hands. It is contended that the allegations levelled
against him by the respondent are false and that there is no material
on record which even prima facie suggests that the respondent was
subjected to cruelty or harassment by him. It is also his case that the
material on record shows that the respondent had attempted to poison
him, was engaged in an illicit relationship with one of her female
friends, and frequently used abusive language towards him.

14. At the outset, this Court notes that the existence of a domestic
relationship between the parties is not in dispute, since the marriage
between them is admitted. A bare perusal of the application filed by
the respondent-wife under Section 12 of the PWDV Act reveals that
she has levelled several allegations of being subjected to cruelty and
harassment by the petitioner-husband and his family members. These
allegations, inter alia, include that they used to beat her, abuse her
and humiliate her for bringing insufficient dowry from her parental
home. There are also allegations of inappropriate and obscene

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 10 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
conduct by the brother of the petitioner towards her, as well as
allegations of physical assault by the petitioner and his family
members. Such allegations, if taken at face value, fall within the
broad contours of „domestic violence‟ as defined under the PWDV
Act.

15. The learned Appellate Court, in this regard, has observed as
under in the impugned judgment:

“9. As regards the issue of domestic violence, it is categorically
stated in the petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act by
respondent/wife that appellant/husband and his family
members used to harass, humiliate and misbehave with her. It
is also alleged that he used to fight and had violent behaviour
with her. She has also referred to different incidents when she
was subjected to physical, emotional and economic abuse by
appellant/husband.

It is observed that all allegations of domestic violence,
although controverted by appellant/ husband, prima facie
reflect infliction of domestic violence upon respondent/wife for
the purpose of deciding the issue of interim maintenance.
Although, one of the grounds of preferring the present appeal is
non infliction of any domestic violence by appellant/husband,
however, the issue can be finally decided only during trial.”

16. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, both the learned Trial Court
and the learned Appellate Court have rightly formed a view that, at
this stage, the respondent-wife prima facie satisfies the requirements
of an „aggrieved person‟ as defined under Section 2(a) of the PWDV
Act, since the existence of a domestic relationship between the
parties and the allegations of domestic violence during the
subsistence of such relationship are prima facie borne out from the
record.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 11 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

17. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner-husband is that the respondent-wife was involved
in an illicit relationship with one of her female friends. In support of
this allegation, reliance is placed on an order dated 19.11.2022 passed
by the learned Trial Court in the present case, wherein the learned
counsel for the respondent had admitted document Annexure „I‟
(pages 127 to 129), which was stated to be a settlement between the
parties. The said settlement dated 04.03.2015 has been placed on
record and purportedly indicates that the respondent had admitted to
communicating with her female friend over the phone and
intentionally instigating quarrels with the petitioner in order to meet
her.

18. However, it is to be noted that the respondent had admitted the
said document before the learned Trial Court on 19.11.2022 only to
the extent that it had been prepared during the course of settlement
discussions between the parties. Further, a perusal of the aforesaid
document/settlement deed does not specifically reveal any admission
that the respondent herein was in any relationship with her friend.
Furthermore, this Court‟s attention has also been drawn to another
case pending between the parties i.e. HMA 234/2020 (Soham Rani
vs. Anurag Manohar Kankarwal), wherein during the examination of
respondent-wife on 01.12.2022 before the concerned Court, she
admitted that the signatures appearing on the aforesaid document
were hers, while specifically denying the allegation that she was in
any illicit relationship with her friend. In these circumstances, this

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 12 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
Court is of the view that the veracity and evidentiary value of the said
document, as well as the allegations arising therefrom, can only be
determined upon a full-fledged trial after appreciation of evidence. At
this stage, the issue remains a disputed question of fact.

19. The learned Appellate Court also, in this regard, has rightly
observed as under:

“10. Firstly, as regards one affidavit dated 03.03.2015 which
was admitted and acknowledged by respondent/wife vide
ordersheet dated 19.11.2022 of Ld. Trial Court, it is observed
that the said document was prepared way back in 2015 as a part
of alleged settlement between the parties (as recorded in
ordersheet dated 19.11.2022). The said document, as it stands
on record today, does not affect the relationship or status of
parties as husband and wife. Further, the said document and
circumstances under which it was prepared, are yet to be tested
on the touchstone of cross-examination. As such, the „impact‟
of such a document or impact of admission of „existence‟
thereof is strictly a matter of trial. In the opinion of this Court,
this affidavit cannot be considered as a factor too significant to
deny the right of interim maintenance to the respondent/wife.”

20. In Ajay Kumar v. Uma: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 148, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court held that interim maintenance under
the PWDV Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations of an illicit relationship.

21. This Bench also, in Ateet Jain v. Chhavi Jain:

2026:DHC:913, in context of PWDV Act, has observed as under:

“21. Notably, unlike Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., there is no
express statutory bar under the PWDV Act disentitling a
woman from seeking reliefs merely on the allegation that she is
living in adultery. However, Explanation II to Section 3 of the
PWDV Act clarifies that, for the purposes of determining
whether any act, omission or conduct constitutes “domestic

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 13 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
violence”, the overall facts and circumstances of the case are
required to be taken into consideration. Thus, any material or
evidence relating to the conduct of the wife, including
allegations of adultery, would undoubtedly be a relevant factor;
however, the same would essentially be a matter requiring
adjudication after evidence is led.”

22. Therefore, at this stage, the Court is only required to examine
whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner-husband, and
a perusal of the allegations made by the respondent-wife indicates
that such a prima facie case is indeed made out. In view of the above,
this Court does not find it appropriate to deny interim maintenance to
the respondent merely on the ground of bald and unsubstantiated
allegations that she is, or earlier was, in any alleged illicit
relationship.

23. Next, the issue of quantum of maintenance is to be considered.
It has been contended by the petitioner-husband that the order
granting maintenance was passed without properly analysing his
financial liabilities. According to the petitioner, he is required to
incur several monthly expenses, including payment of a home loan
instalment of about ₹40,000/- per month, health insurance premium
of about ₹20,000/-, LIC policy premiums, school fees of the elder son
amounting to ₹11,000/- per month, and household expenses of about
₹20,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also
responsible for maintaining his aged parents, including their daily
and medical expenses, and that he is also contributing towards the
expenses of his younger son who is presently in the custody of the
respondent-wife.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 14 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the settled legal
position is that voluntary expenses such as repayment of loans, LIC
premiums and health insurance premiums cannot override the
statutory duty to pay maintenance. In other words, a person cannot, in
the garb of such financial commitments, evade or dilute his legal and
moral obligation to maintain his wife and child. The obligation to
provide maintenance to the wife and the minor child is a paramount
responsibility, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to defeat the
same by placing undue reliance on liabilities which are either
voluntary in nature or arise out of his personal financial
arrangements. Only statutory deductions from salary are ordinarily
taken into account while determining interim maintenance. In this
regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in Subhash v. Mamta @ Raksha: MAT. APP. (F.C.)
No. 195/2025, decided on 26.05.2025, wherein it was categorically
held that repayment of personal loans and EMIs voluntarily
undertaken by the earning spouse cannot be treated as permissible
deductions so as to dilute or override the primary obligation to
maintain a dependent spouse or child. The Court reiterated that the
determination of maintenance must be based on the “free income” of
the earning spouse and not on the net income that remains after
accounting for voluntary financial commitments.

25. Further, as regards the assessment of the income of the
petitioner-husband, the material on record, including the salary slip,
indicates that he earns about ₹80,000/- per month, which is also the

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 15 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
admitted income of the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that
he bears the financial responsibility of his aged father and mother,
both aged more than 80 years, as well as the elder son who is
presently in his custody.

26. In such a situation where there are two children, the wife, and
the husband‟s aged parents, the income of the husband may be
apportioned by allocating two shares to the husband and one share
each to the wife, both children and both parents, as explained by this
Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 2004 SCC OnLine Del

192. Applying the said principle, and considering the petitioner‟s
monthly income to be about ₹80,000/-, the amount of interim
maintenance payable to the respondent-wife and the minor son,
assessed at ₹25,000/- per month by the learned Trial Court, appears
to be reasonable and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.

27. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner-husband is that the
respondent-wife is a well-educated woman holding a postgraduate
degree (M.A.), and that she was employed prior to the separation of
the parties but has deliberately chosen not to work in order to claim
maintenance from the petitioner.

28. This contention, however, is not supported by any material on
record. At this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the respondent
was independently employed prior to the separation of the parties. It
has been stated that a beauty parlour had been opened by the
petitioner himself, but even there another girl had been appointed to

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 16 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
run the parlour as the respondent allegedly did not possess the
requisite skills to manage the work of a parlour. Apart from this, no
document or material has been placed on record to demonstrate that
the respondent was gainfully employed at any point of time.

29. In this regard, this Court is also of the view that there is a clear
distinction between a person being capable of earning and a person
actually earning. It is well settled that mere educational qualification
or the capacity to earn does not ipso facto establish that a wife is
actually earning. The distinction between the ability to earn and
actual income has been recognised by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna: (2018) 12 SCC 199.

30. Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of any material to
indicate that the respondent-wife is actually employed or earning any
independent income, there is no ground to deny interim maintenance
to her merely on the basis that she is a postgraduate.

31. Lastly, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact
that a property situated in Rohini had been purchased in the name of
the respondent-wife and was subsequently sold for a sum of about
₹40,00,000/- by her. It has come on record that out of the said sale
consideration, ₹20,00,000/- (approximately) were utilised towards
repayment of the housing loan taken for purchase of the property,
while the remaining amount of about ₹20,00,000/- was received by
the respondent and used by her for her personal expenses and for the
upkeep of herself and the minor child in her custody.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 17 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

32. This Court notes that the property in question had already been
sold in May 2019. The respondent-wife, in her statement dated
14.03.2022 before the learned Trial Court, admitted that while living
separately from the petitioner-husband, she had sold the property
bearing No. D-1/28, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, for a total
consideration of ₹40,00,000/-. The said property had originally been
purchased in her name, for which a bank loan had been availed, along
with finances arranged by the petitioner-husband for its purchase.
The respondent further stated that in April 2019, after the parties had
separated, the petitioner had approached her for sale of the said
property, to which she had agreed.

33. It was also admitted by the respondent that out of the total sale
consideration of ₹40,00,000/-, a sum of ₹20,00,000/- was utilised
towards repayment of the bank loan which had been availed for
purchase of the property, while the remaining amount of ₹20,00,000/-
was withdrawn and retained by her. According to the petitioner, this
amount belonged to him and his father, as the same had been
advanced to the respondent as a loan at the time of purchasing the
property. On the other hand, the respondent has stated that the
remaining amount was utilised by her for her personal expenses and
for the upbringing of the younger son „A‟.

34. In this regard, this Court observes that the learned Trial Court,
vide order dated 28.02.2023, had awarded an amount of ₹25,000/- per
month as interim maintenance to the respondent and the minor son in
her custody. The learned Trial Court had also taken into account the

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 18 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
amount of ₹20,00,000/- received by the respondent from the sale of
the property and had adjusted the same by calculating a notional
amount of about ₹40,000/- per month for the period from April 2019
to February 2023, i.e., from the date of separation of the parties till
the passing of the order dated 28.02.2023. The learned Trial Court
had accordingly directed that the interim maintenance of ₹25,000/-
per month in favour of the respondent-wife and the minor son „A‟
shall be payable from the date of the order, i.e., 28.02.2023.

35. Subsequently, the learned Sessions Court, while adjudicating
the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2024, modified
the calculation made by the learned Trial Court. The learned
Appellate Court directed that the amount of ₹20,00,000/- received by
the respondent-wife from the sale of the property, which was
admittedly utilised by her for maintenance, be adjusted at the rate of
₹25,000/- per month with effect from April 2019 onwards, which
would cover the period till December 2025. Accordingly, it was
directed that the amount of ₹15,000/- per month towards maintenance
of the respondent-wife (out of the total interim maintenance of
₹25,000/-) would become payable only from 01.01.2026 onwards.
However, at the same time, the learned Appellate Court observed that
since the petitioner-husband, in his income affidavit, had expressed
willingness to bear the necessary expenses of the minor son who is in
the custody of the respondent-wife, the amount of ₹10,000/- per
month towards interim maintenance of the minor child would be
payable from the date of the order itself, i.e., 28.02.2023.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 19 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

36. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the respondent-wife has
specifically stated before this Court, as also in the written arguments
filed on record, that she has no grievance with the amount of
₹20,00,000/- received by her from sale consideration of property
being adjusted against interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month
from April 2019 to 31.12.2025, and she being granted interim
maintenance w.e.f. 01.01.2026.

37. This Court notes that both the learned Trial Court and the
learned Appellate Court, while adjusting the amount of ₹20,00,000/-
received by the respondent-wife from the sale of the property towards
interim maintenance, have computed the adjustment from the date of
separation of the parties, i.e., April 2019, and not from the date of
filing of the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, which
was filed on 20.10.2020.

38. It is well settled that interim maintenance is ordinarily to be
granted from the date of filing of the application. In Rajnesh v.
Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed
as under:

“89. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the
Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application
or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of
Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant
maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including
Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the practical
working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that
there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for
interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in
the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is
awarded from the date of the application.”

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 20 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

39. In the present case, the question that arises for consideration is
whether the amount of ₹20,00,000/- admittedly received by the
respondent-wife from sale of the property, as noted above, ought to
be adjusted from the date of separation of the parties or from the date
on which the application seeking maintenance was filed. Upon
consideration, this Court is of the view that the amount received by
the respondent is liable to be adjusted against the interim
maintenance awarded to her; however, since the settled legal position
is that interim maintenance is to be granted from the date of filing of
the application seeking maintenance and not from the date of
separation of parties, as held in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the
adjustment of the said amount must also be computed from the date
of filing of the application and not from the date of separation of the
parties.

40. Accordingly, the amount of ₹20,00,000/- received by the
respondent-wife from the sale of the property shall be adjusted
against the interim maintenance amount of ₹25,000/- per month from
the date of filing of the application under the PWDV Act, i.e.,
20.10.2020, and not from the date of separation in April 2019. The
said amount shall thus stand adjusted for the period from 20.10.2020
till 20.06.2027.

41. Since the amount of interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per
month is being adjusted against the sum of ₹20,00,000/- received by
the respondent-wife from the sale of the property – an amount which

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 21 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
she admittedly utilised for her personal expenses and for the
upbringing of the minor son „A‟, for the period from the date of filing
of the application till 20.06.2027 – the said amount of ₹25,000/- per
month also includes the maintenance component payable towards the
minor son „A‟ as well.

42. Accordingly, both the respondent-wife as well as the minor son
shall be entitled to receive consolidated interim maintenance of
₹25,000/- per month with effect from 21.06.2027 onwards.

43. Any amount paid and received by the respondent shall be
adjusted in

44. In above terms, the present petition, along with pending
application, is disposed of.

45. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

46. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
APRIL 04, 2026/A
TD/AP/RB

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 22 of 22
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Anurag Manohar Kankarwal vs Soham Rani on 4 April, 2026

Delhi High Court