Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on February 21 by ShadesOfKnife

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the legality of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in a matrimonial-related criminal case.

The Court held that authorities cannot issue an LOC routinely. The Court emphasised that an LOC affects personal liberty and must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and the case did not fall within exceptional categories, the Court directed withdrawal of the LOC.

Before reproducing the relevant extracts, the Court examined the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the statutory guidelines governing Look-Out Circulars.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgment:

“14. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights, it is the fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One’s such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. [See; Article 21 Constitution of India].”
“14. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”
“17. Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a Look-Out Circular shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator and that no Look-Out Circular shall be deleted automatically.”
“18. Sub-para L of the circular dt. 22.02.2021 indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India…”
“20. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted.”
“21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the 5th respondent shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024… forthwith.”

Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the authorities to withdraw the Look-Out Circular forthwith. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for travel permission in the pending criminal case.

Bagadi Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Post Views: 91

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Posted on February 20 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. The observations made in both the decisions are similar and they go to show that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
11. In the instant case, Non-Bailable-Warrant was issued against the petitioner/A-4 as she was shown absconding in the charge sheet and it is not the case that proclamation proceedings were initiated and thus, the petitioner cannot at all be termed as a ‘proclaimed offender’ so as to disentitle her from getting the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus, as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since proclamation proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. are not initiated, the present petition is maintainable.

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Post Views: 43

Rashmi Raikhy and Anr Vs The State of NCT Delhi and Ors on 1 Feb 2018

Posted on February 19 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Delhi, quashed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioners registered under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC.

The Court held that issuance and continuation of an LOC in a matrimonial dispute involving Section 406 IPC was neither reasonable nor justified, especially when the petitioners had regularly appeared before the trial court, complied with bail conditions under Section 438 CrPC, and had not misused permission to travel abroad.

The Court emphasised that an LOC is a serious coercive measure and cannot be mechanically issued in matrimonial disputes where the accused are neither absconding nor involved in heinous offences.

The LOC was accordingly directed to be withdrawn.

The following paragraphs were instrumental in the Court’s decision to quash the Look Out Circular:

Para 4 “Record reveals that on several occasions permissions were sought by the petitioners to travel abroad and the said permissions were granted; there are no allegations of their misuse. Record further reveals that the petitioners are regularly appearing before the court concerned in the said proceedings.”
Para 5 “During this period since 2009/2010, the petitioners have suffered a lot due to issuance of LOC against them. Even after discharge order on 11.12.2017, LOC against the petitioner No.2 has not been rescinded.”
Para 7 “For the offence under Section 406 IPC, in matrimonial dispute, issuance of LOC against the petitioners till disposal of the case cannot be justified; the offence is not heinous in nature.”
Para 8 “In the case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy, E.V.R.Santosh Reddy and Rajeshwari vs. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and State represented by the Inspector of Police MANU/TN/2308/2013, Madras High Court noted various types of persons who could be included in the LOC:-
(i) Persons with Terrorists or Militant Links,
(ii) Belligerent Foreigners,
(iii) Foreigners previously noticed for violations of visa conditions.
(iv) Persons required by courts in criminal/civil cases who are absconding
(v) Absconding Offenders wanted by Police/CBI/Customs /Central excise/ Directorate of Rev. Intelligence/other agencies”
Para 9 “Apparently, the petitioners do not fall in any of the above categories. There are no allegations that petitioner No.1 ever absconded and did not participate in the criminal proceedings.”
Para 10 “Issuance of LOC is a serious matter as it contains full particulars of the individual which are sent throughout the world. Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and due to subsequent development whereby the petitioner No.1 was charged only under Section 406 IPC, continuation of LOC against her can’t be considered reasonable and justified.”
Para 11 “In view of the above discussion, the concerned authorities are directed to withdraw the LOC order issued against the petitioners.”

Decision of the Court

Exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the withdrawal of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioners.

Rashmi Raikhy Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: [2018:DHC:785]

Other Sources :

Index of Look Out Circular decisions is here.

Key Contributor:
Mrs Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Post Views: 61

Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case

Posted on February 19 by Suprajaa Rajan

A divorce case follows a structured legal pathway, and understanding each stage enables individuals to approach the process with preparedness and clarity.

Here is a Detailed Step-by-Step Guide to Divorce by Mutual Consent and Contested Divorce in India.

Divorce is a formal legal process through which a valid marriage is dissolved by a court of law. The procedure follows a structured framework under personal laws and procedural statutes. In India, divorce proceedings are primarily governed by personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and procedural provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

This article explains the complete life cycle of a divorce case. It focuses on two major types of divorce proceedings: divorce by mutual consent and contested divorce.

Types of Divorce Cases

1. Divorce by Mutual Consent

Divorce by mutual consent arises when both spouses agree to dissolve the marriage. They mutually decide that they can no longer live together harmoniously. Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for divorce by mutual consent.

Both parties must agree on key issues before filing the petition. These issues include child custody, maintenance, alimony, and division of property.
The agreement must reflect free will and absence of coercion. Courts encourage this method because it reduces emotional and financial strain.
This process is generally faster than contested divorce proceedings.

2. Contested Divorce

A contested divorce occurs when one spouse files for divorce without the consent of the other spouse. The petitioner must prove legally recognised grounds for divorce. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lists grounds such as cruelty, adultery, desertion, conversion, mental disorder, and others.

The respondent may oppose the petition and deny the allegations. The matter then proceeds through evidence, trial, and judicial determination.
Contested divorces often require detailed examination of facts and legal arguments.

1. Stage One: Pre-Filing Consultation and Legal Preparation

The divorce process usually begins with legal consultation. A spouse consults an advocate to understand rights, obligations, and potential outcomes.
The lawyer evaluates the facts to determine whether grounds for divorce exist.

At this stage, parties gather essential documents. These documents include the marriage certificate, proof of residence, identity documents, and evidence supporting allegations. Financial documents such as income statements and property records are also collected.

In mutual consent cases, spouses negotiate settlement terms before filing.In contested cases, the petitioner prepares factual pleadings and supporting material.

Legal preparation ensures clarity and reduces procedural delays.

2. Stage Two: Filing of the Divorce Petition

The formal process begins when the petitioner files a divorce petition before the competent Family Court. Jurisdiction depends on place of marriage, last residence together, or current residence of the respondent.

The petition contains material facts of the marriage. It states the date of marriage, details of children, and grounds for divorce. It also specifies relief sought, including dissolution of marriage, custody, maintenance, and litigation expenses.

In mutual consent divorce, both parties jointly file a petition under Section 13B. In contested divorce, only one spouse files the petition citing statutory grounds.

After scrutiny, the court registers the case and assigns a case number. The court then issues notice to the respondent.

3. Stage Three: Service of Notice and Appearance

The court ensures proper service of notice upon the respondent. Service of notice guarantees adherence to principles of natural justice. The respondent must receive an opportunity to present a defence.

The notice specifies the next hearing date. The respondent must appear personally or through legal counsel.Failure to appear may result in ex-parte proceedings.

Proper service validates further proceedings in the case.

4. Stage Four: Filing of Written Statement and Counter-Claims

In contested divorce cases, the respondent files a written statement. The written statement responds to each allegation in the petition. The respondent may admit, deny, or explain specific claims.The respondent may also raise counter-claims seeking independent relief. Counter-claims may include restitution of conjugal rights or custody rights.

In mutual consent cases, both parties submit affidavits confirming voluntary agreement. The court verifies that consent is genuine and informed.

This stage defines the scope of dispute between parties.

5. Stage Five: Interim Applications and Temporary Relief

During pendency of the case, parties may seek interim relief. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Either spouse may apply for interim financial support.

Courts may also pass temporary custody orders in the best interest of the child. Interim protection orders ensure stability during litigation.

The court evaluates financial capacity and needs before granting interim relief. These orders remain effective until final judgment.

6. Stage Six: Mediation and Reconciliation Efforts

Family Courts often refer parties to mediation or conciliation. Section 9 of the Family Courts Act encourages settlement efforts. Mediation promotes amicable resolution without prolonged litigation. A neutral mediator facilitates constructive dialogue. Parties may resolve disputes regarding custody and property during mediation.

If mediation succeeds, parties record settlement terms before the court.
If mediation fails, the case proceeds to trial.

7. Stage Seven: Framing of Issues

In contested divorce, the court frames issues for determination. Issues identify disputed questions of fact and law. Each issue requires evidence and adjudication. For example, the court may frame an issue on whether cruelty occurred. The court may also frame issues regarding entitlement to maintenance.

Framing of issues narrows the scope of trial.
It provides procedural clarity to both parties.

8. Stage Eight: Evidence and Trial

The trial stage begins with the petitioner presenting evidence. Evidence may include documents, photographs, medical reports, or electronic records.
Witnesses may testify in support of allegations.

The respondent cross-examines the petitioner’s witnesses. Cross-examination tests credibility and factual accuracy.After the petitioner closes evidence, the respondent presents defence evidence. The petitioner may cross-examine defence witnesses.

The court records all testimonies systematically. The trial ensures procedural fairness and evidentiary scrutiny.

9. Stage Nine: Final Arguments

After completion of evidence, the court schedules final arguments. Advocates summarise factual findings and legal provisions. They cite relevant precedents to strengthen submissions.

The judge evaluates oral and written arguments carefully. The court may raise clarificatory questions during arguments. Final arguments provide an opportunity to persuade the court.

10. Stage Ten: Judgment and Decree

After considering pleadings, evidence, and arguments, the court delivers judgment. The judgment explains reasoning and legal conclusions. If grounds are proved, the court grants a decree of divorce. The decree formally dissolves the marriage. The court also decides maintenance, custody, and property disputes.

In mutual consent cases, the court grants decree after second motion confirmation. The decree becomes effective upon pronouncement.

11. Post-Judgment Remedies and Appeal

An aggrieved party may file an appeal before a higher court. Appeals must comply with statutory limitation periods. The appellate court reviews legal and procedural correctness. Parties may also seek modification of custody or maintenance orders. Courts entertain modification applications upon change in circumstances.

Conclusion

A divorce case follows a structured and legally regulated life cycle.
Divorce by mutual consent offers a cooperative and time-efficient resolution.
Contested divorce involves detailed judicial examination and trial.

Each stage safeguards fairness, transparency, and due process.
Understanding the procedure empowers individuals to approach the process confidently.
Proper legal guidance and informed decision-making significantly improve outcomes.

Other Life Cycles: 498A IPC Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index of all life cycles is here.

Key Contributor:
Mrs Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Post Views: 1,098

Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025

Posted on February 19 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Patna High Court held as follows,

From Para 3, (Gold Digger looking for next bakra)

3. The petitioner has alleged that the opposite party/wife is in the habit of duping different young men with the sole motive of earning huge amounts of money after marriage, either by way of alimony or claiming maintenance allowance. Even during the strained relation with the petitioner, the opposite party started to find out another person as a groom to whom she could marry.

From Para 7,

7. The petitioner medically treated her and came to know that the opposite party was suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) leading to suicidal tendencies.

From Para 28,

28. While Section 125 proceedings are summary, courts consider conduct and financial disclosures critically. If a wife conceals her actual income or alimony, it may disentitle her as the court relies on bona fide disclosures to decide maintenance amount. Reference in this regard may be made to a Punjab & Haryana High Court case of Jaspreet Singh v. Gurleen Kaur, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 55

From Paras 29 and 30,

29. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that before passing a final order of maintenance, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra is under statutory obligation to direct the parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities. Only on due consideration of such affidavits of assets and liabilities, it will be possible for the Court to consider the status of the parties, their assets, respective needs, capability of earning and on the basis of such documents, Court can come to a conclusive decision with regard to amount of maintenance.
30. In view of such circumstances, this Court does not have any other alternative but to hold that the impugned order suffers from impropriety and illegality in over looking suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance.

Finally, from Paras 33 and 34,

33. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra for information with a direction that he shall direct both the parties to file their affidavits of assets and liabilities as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish (supara) within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
34. After receiving the affidavits of assets and liabilities from both the parties, the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by passing a fresh judgement within four weeks thereafter.

Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10821398/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68b9b4b3f964826458fefb71

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patna-high-court/ravi-prakash-saxena-v-priyanka-rani-patna-high-court-divorce-proceedings-maintenance-section-125-crpc-1590606

Family Law September 2025 | Important Case Law and Judicial Updates

Patna High Court Sets Aside ₹20K Monthly Maintenance, Affidavits of Assets & Liabilities Must Be Filed Before Deciding Maintenance Rajnish v. Neha

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 144 BNSS is here.

Post Views: 96

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Posted on February 18 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court ruled that enforcement of maintenance orders must strictly follow the mechanism provided under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 421 CrPC. It permits recovery through attachment and sale of property, and not by issuance of a Look Out Circular.

The Court further observed that continuing an LOC despite a judicial stay order amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Below are the crucial paragraphs that formed the foundation of the Court’s decision:

Para 2
“It is submitted that Section 125(3) provides that in enforcement of the maintenance order Court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for fines as prescribed under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 provides that a warrant for levy of fine by attachment of sale of immovable property.”
“Proviso to Section 421 provides that no such warrant shall be executed by arrest or detention in prison of the offender. The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing the order of maintenance.”
“The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing an order that is passed under Section 125 of CrPC.”
“Maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of CrPC is a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If party defaults the remedy is to seek execution of the order i.e., attachment of property, warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment.”
“Look out circulars are meant to prevent the accused/offenders from evading criminal process. The LOC cannot be issued for recovering the dues of maintenance.”
Para 6
“Further, continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Mohammed Azeem Vs Saheeba and Ors

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Judgments about Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.,

+91-9606345150

Post Views: 121

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Posted on February 17 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A and Section 504 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court examined the complaint in detail. It found that the allegations described routine marital disagreements. They did not disclose grave cruelty or a specific unlawful dowry demand.

The Bench clarified an important principle. Section 498A IPC does not criminalise incompatibility or ordinary wear and tear of marriage. Criminal law cannot become a tool in matrimonial discord.

The following paragraphs formed the core reasoning of the Court:

Para 8
“A careful reading of the complaint reveals grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, disagreements over television preferences laced with a statement that the husband treated the complainant/wife as his servant. These allegations even if accepted at face value, portray a portrait of marital discord, but falls woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Para 8 (continued)
“If this is the complaint against the husband and in-laws, it cannot but be held that it is an abuse of the process of law, as minor skirmishes that happens in the family between the husband and the wife are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or even under Section 504 IPC.”
Para 9
“The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills. It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry.”
Para 12
“The present case forms, as observed hereinabove, a classic illustration of the said abuse. The Apex Court, in such cases, holds that the offence should be nipped in the bud by interfering under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
Para 26
“The allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations… It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.”

Abuzar ahmed Vs State of Karanataka on 8 Jan 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan
B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
Contact : 9606345150

Post Views: 207

Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

In Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar, the Delhi High Court held that a Family Court cannot fix interim maintenance without recording a clear assessment of the husband’s income. While concealment of income permits an adverse inference, the Court must still determine actual or notional monthly income before fixing the quantum. Since the Family Court failed to disclose the income basis for the amount awarded, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh determination in accordance with law and the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

Before setting out the relevant extracts, the Court emphasized that maintenance cannot be fixed in vacuum and must reflect a reasoned assessment of income.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgement :

“9. Apparently, it is the petitioner’s case that he had left his job on 04.01.2019, therefore, it is questionable as to how there were credit entries of Rs.15,45,131/- in the period 2021–23, in case he was unemployed.”
“10. In these circumstances, the learned Family Court drew an adverse inference that the petitioner is a man of means and has sufficient capacity to maintain the respondent and their minor child.”
“17. However, the order does not disclose any assessment – either actual or notional – of the petitioner’s monthly income on the basis of which this quantum was determined.”
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in its present form. While the learned Family Court rightly observed that the petitioner had concealed his true income and possessed sufficient means, it proceeded to fix the amount of maintenance without recording any assessment of his income or indicating the basis on which the figure of ₹20,000/- per month was arrived at.
“19. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for a fresh determination of interim maintenance…”

From Paras 47 to 49, A caution was sounded.

46. However, the method must be applied with accuracy and care. Minimum wages are not uniform across India; they vary by State/Union Territory, by scheduled employment, and by skill category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, or highly skilled), and they are periodically revised. The learned Family Courts must therefore:
(i) identify the correct State,
(ii) determine the appropriate skill category on a prima facie view of the husband‟s qualifications, experience and past vocation, and
(iii) note the effective date of the minimum wage schedule relied upon.
47. Orders that simply assume “minimum wages in Delhi” without examining whether the husband resides or is ordinarily employed in another State result in a higher or lower income assessment. For instance, if the husband resides in the State of Haryana and there is no proof that he is employed in Delhi, the minimum wage schedule applicable in Haryana has to be applied. The inadvertent practice of applying Delhi’s minimum wages merely because the proceedings are before a court in Delhi or because the wife resides in Delhi ought to be avoided.
48. However, it is also to be considered that minimum wages are a floor, not a ceiling. If the record supports a higher prima facie income (for instance, on the basis of prior salary slips, tax returns, bank account statements, etc.), the Family Court should assess the income accordingly rather than resorting to default minimum wages.
49. It must also be borne in mind that minimum wages notified by each State are periodically revised. Therefore, while determining the income for a past period, the Family Court must refer to the minimum wages that were in force at that time, and not to the rates prevailing on the date of the order. For instance, if the income of the husband for the year 2022 is under consideration, the Court should take into account the minimum wages applicable in 2022 for the relevant category and State, rather than the revised figures of 2025.

Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Muzaffar on 29 Oct 2025

Citation: [2025:DHC:9479]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107706650/

Index of maintenance judgements under 125 Cr.P.C is here.

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M.
Contact : 9606345150

Post Views: 96

Sahiba Sodhi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 09 Dec 2025

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

From Paras from 13 to 17,

13. From the affidavit of income, assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner-wife before the learned Trial Court in November 2020, it is evident that she did not disclose the income earned during her period of employment between April 2020 and July 2020. In the said affidavit, she asserted that she had worked only for ten months during the entire eight years of marriage. However, she later admitted having worked for a few months in 2020 also, only after the learned Trial Court specifically directed her to file her bank account statements for the period April 2020 to November 2020 – statements which she had not annexed with her affidavit despite filing it in November 2020.
14. It is further noted that although an updated income affidavit was filed by the petitioner in April 2021 in compliance with the directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnish v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, she still did not file her income tax returns for the preceding three years, claiming that the husband had been filing them on her behalf. The learned Trial Court observed that ITRs could nevertheless be accessed using her PAN details and granted her a final opportunity to file them, while imposing costs of ₹1,000/-. The relevant bank statements were eventually filed in July 2021, but legible copies were not furnished to the respondent-husband. In view of the petitioner‟s repeated non-compliance and withholding of material documents, the learned Trial Court was constrained to stay the operation of the ad-interim maintenance order. When bank statements were eventually produced, the salary of about ₹18,000/- per month, admittedly earned by the petitioner during those three months as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court, was not reflected in the bank account statements, nor was any termination letter filed contemporaneously. These omissions led the learned Trial Court to conclude that the petitioner did have a source of income, which she attempted to suppress.
15. The learned Trial Court also took note of the petitioner‟s earlier ITRs which showed that, contrary to her claim of having no source of income, she had declared substantial earnings in the years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Her ITR for the FY 2017–2018 reflected a gross income exceeding ₹3,00,000/-, comprising rental income and income from other sources. Similarly, her ITR for the FY 2018–2019 showed a gross income of more than ₹3,50,000/-, again arising from rent and deposits. These disclosures were inconsistent with her submission that she was unemployed and that whatever she earned was taken away by her husband.Her bank account statements also reflected electronic transfers, credit entries and investments, none of which were satisfactorily explained by her. These circumstances, at the interim stage, provided sufficient basis for the learned Trial Court to draw a prima facie inference that the petitioner had additional sources of income which she had not disclosed in her income affidavit, and thus, suppressed material facts relating to her financial capacity.
16. The learned Sessions Court, after independently examining the Trial Court record, affirmed these findings and held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. It noted that the petitioner had produced the relevant records only when confronted with the documents filed by the respondent-husband and only after specific and repeated directions were passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Sessions Court also observed that her explanations for the credit entries in her bank accounts were merely oral and unsupported by documents.
17. The record further reflects that the petitioner had received substantial amounts towards maturity of LIC policies and recurring deposits upon the demise of both her parents. Her own explanation is that these amounts were reinvested for the benefit of herself and the child. However, the fact remains that such reinvestments would reasonably generate returns in the form of interest, which constitute a source of income that was never disclosed. The respondent-husband has also placed on record the ITR Acknowledgement for AY 2025–2026, of the petitioner-wife, showing an income of ₹2,04,730/-.

The beauty in this judgment is as follows:

20. However, this Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner regarding her right to secure adequate residence. It is undisputed that after the parties vacated the rented premises, the petitioner and the minor child have been residing at her brother‟s house. The petitioner is not paying any rent and is residing there purely out of goodwill.
21. Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act empowers the Court to direct the respondent to secure for the aggrieved woman the same level of alternate accommodation as enjoyed by her in the shared household, or to pay rent for the same. The husband also owes a statutory duty to provide residence for his minor child, who resides with the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner may not be entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of income does not, ipso facto, in the interregnum, disentitle her to a residence order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-wife is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, as expenses towards securing a rented accommodation for herself and the minor child, which shall be paid by the respondent herein. The directions qua payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the minor child, as directed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Court, have not been challenged before this Court, and the same are accordingly not interfered with.

The mere fact that the case is only at a Stage where there is challenge to the Interim Orders, this Order sustains. Otherwise, no relief may be granted under DV Act unless DV is established by way of evidence. One should not forget that, as per Section 19(1)(f) of DV Act, ONLY on being satisfied that DV actually happened (obviously by way of evidence), the relief in sub-section can be granted, that to in Main petition

19. Residence orders.—(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order—
(a) xxxx;
(b) xxxx;
(c) xxxx;
(d) xxxx;
(e) xxxx; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.

Frankly, why is interim maintenance granted to the child, when DV was not held to be prima facie established?

Sahiba Sodhi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 09 Dec 2025

Citations: [2025:DHC:11064]

Other Sources:

Post Views: 272

Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026

Posted on February 13 by ShadesOfKnife

In Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood, the Delhi High Court enhanced interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that when a husband suppresses income details or provides incomplete, the Court can assess income on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the concerned State.

The Court held that the wife cannot be presumed to earn merely on allegation.

“8. Mere bald assertion that the wife is working and earning, without any proof to even prima facie support this claim, cannot be of any help to the respondent-husband at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that, for the purposes of grant of interim maintenance, the petitioner-wife cannot be presumed to be earning or being capable of maintaining herself.”
“10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the income of the respondent-husband must be assessed on the basis of minimum wages. Extract from Tasmeer Qureshi case cited :Minimum wages provide a statutory and reasonable basis to assess a person’s earning capacity when there is no direct or reliable proof of actual income available on record.”

From Paras 13 and 14,

13. Accordingly, to serve the interests of justice, the interim maintenance payable to the petitioner-wife is enhanced from ₹2,500/- per month to ₹3,500/- per month, payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. subject to adjustment of any amount already paid.
14. The petitioner is directed to also clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of 03 months from date.

Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 05 Jan 2026

Citation : [2026:DHC:13]

Other Sources :

https://lawlens.in/doc/ad1b1315-b5cf-43f9-b8e0-b623d4374582

https://www.legalbites.in/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita/maintenance-fixation-must-use-minimum-wages-of-husbands-state-rather-than-courts-location-1237797

Index of Maintenance Judgements under 125 Cr.P.C is here.

Key Contributor:
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.
Contact : +91-9606345150

Post Views: 164

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Decision

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Rashmi Raikhy and Anr Vs The State of NCT Delhi and Ors on 1 Feb 2018

Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Para 8

Para 8 (continued)

Para 9

Para 12

Para 26

Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025

Sahiba Sodhi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 09 Dec 2025

Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026