PRATHIBA M.SINGH, J. - (1.) This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
(2.) The present dispute has arisen between Mr. Himmat Singh and Ms. Priyanka Singh, husband and wife as also the mother-in-law, Mrs. Manju Deshbir Singh. A complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (hereinafter, "PWDVA") was filed by the wife and the same was considered by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Vide order dated 12th March, 2020, the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the plea of the wife for maintenance. The only protection given to her was an injunction in respect of the property owned by the husband. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "... As far as the claim of complainant for maintenance for the daughters is concerned, admittedly daughters are major and they have not been impleaded as petitioners/aggrieved in the present petition, therefore, complainant cannot claim maintenance on their behalf merely on the allegations of domestic violence being committed upon the complainant and no prima facie case to grant maintenance to the major daughters in the present petition is made out. Similarly, for the same reasons, complainant cannot seek relief to direct the respondent no.1 to make payment towards educational expenses of the daughters. The complainant/aggrieved has sought interim maintenance for herself and her daughters at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and for directions to respondents to renew the lease and to continue to pay the rent as per lease. Admittedly, respondent no.2 was paying the rent of the lease property. Now as far as the renewal of lease deed is concerned, admittedly, the landlord /owner of the property is not a party to present litigation and court cannot give any directions or reliefs to the parties affecting the right/interest etc. of a third party who is not a party to present lis. Therefore, court cannot give any directions to the respondent no. 1 to renew the lease deed and consequently no question to give directions to the respondents to pay further rent is made out. Further, admittedly, complainant owns a property i.e. 307A, Beverly Park -1, Condominium, DLF Phase-II, MG Road worth Rs. 02 crores approximately. Thus, it is not a case where complainant is not having any house or cannot arrange a roof over her head and therefore, there is no requirement to provide any alternative residence to the complainant nor there is any requirement to give any amount as rent to the complainant. Considering the pleading of the parties, the material available on record and the income affidavit of aggrieved, this court is of the view that as per record, complainant has not filed anything on record to show that at present respondent no.1 is earning anything though she has claimed that respondent no.1 is Managing Director in Harig India Ltd. Further, complainant has mentioned in the income affidavit that respondent no. 1 owns approximately 06 immovable properties and 03 movable properties but complainant herself admitted that she did not have any document to support the averments as respondent had not shared any financial documents with the complainant. On the other hand, respondent no.1 has filed affidavit stating that at present, he is not earning and he has even filed income tax returns and bank statements for last three years showing that since 2016 his business is running under loss and his company has gone under liquidation. Admittedly, since September 2016 till March 2019, respondent no. 1 has paid approximately Rs. 85,000/- towards monthly maintenance and till January 2019, respondent no. 1 has even paid rent also. Admittedly, complainant is earning Rs. 55000/- per month. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, financial status of both the parties: and income affidavits of both the parties, it is clear that complainant is capable enough to maintain herself and therefore, she is not entitled to any monetary interim maintenance at this stage. The respondent no.1 had admitted that he owns a property in Revla Khanpur Village, Near Pushpanjali Farm, Delhi and he is joint owner of the property with other owners. The parties have disputed with respect to quantum of shares of the respondent no. 1 in the property, however, considering the overall facts and circumstances as well as the fact that respondent no.1 being husband of complainant is bound to maintain the complainant, the respondent no.1 is hereby restrained from alienating, selling, transferring, mortgaging or creating third party interest etc. in his undivided share in the above mentioned property. Further, complainant has sought the relief to restrain the respondents from alienating their immovable and movable assets. This relief is not granted as the exact details of assets is not given and even the details of cars etc. is mentioned without giving their numbers etc. The application U/s. 23 of the DV Act is disposed off accordingly. Further, ld. Counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that respondent no.2 should be summoned as respondent in the present matter as admittedly she was paying the lease amount and there are correspondences between complainant and respondent no.1 to show that respondent no.2 is having domestic relationship with complainant and in a preplanned conspiracy respondent no.1 and 2 have kept the complainant in dark and all the family business is being run in the name of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 1 has also transferred the family funds and his income in the family business just to outset the complainant. It has been further argued that respondent no. 2 being karta of the business should be summoned as respondent in the present case. Complainant has relied upon the judgments in case titled as "S. R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra", (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 169; "Eveneet Singh and Ors. Vs. Prashant Chaudhari and Ors.", 177(2011)DLT 124, 1(2011)DMC 239 and "Preeti Satija Vs. Raj Kumar and Ors.", 2014 III AD(Delhi) 329. As far as this plea of complainant is concerned, vide order dated 12.09.2019, it was specifically held that there was no domestic between the complainant and respondent no.1, therefore, no notice is issued to respondent no.2. No ground for review or recalling of the said order is made out. The judgments relied upon the complainant are not applicable to the fact in hand. Therefore, this request of the complainant is declined. Aggrieved/complainant is directed to file evidence by way of affidavit and that of other witnesses if any by supplying advance copy to the opposite party. Put up for CE on 08.07.2020. Copy of order be given dasti as prayed for."
(3.) This order was appealed against by the wife before the ld. ADJ. Vide the impugned order dated 29th July, 2020, the ld. ADJ has directed the payment of interim maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per month, educational expenses, rent of Rs.65,000/- per month along with electricity and water charges and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The operative portion of the order of the Ld. ADJ is set out below: "38. In these circumstances, the appeal is disposed of accordingly with following directions: 1). The respondent/ husband shall pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant herein for causing mental agony and for shifting of house. 2). The respondent/husband shall bear the educational expenses including the expenses of Durham University, U.K 3). The respondent/ husband shall pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month on account of monthly rent along with electricity and water charges from 01.08.2020 to the appellant and her daughters 4). The respondent/husband shall pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards interim maintenance to the appellant 5). The respondent/husband shall not alienate the appellant/wife, sell, transfer, mortgage or create third party interest etc. in the property in Revla Khanpur Village, Near Pushpanjali Firm, Delhi." ;