MOHD. SHOAIB Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-husband impugns the judgment dtd. 19/12/2023 [hereafter 'impugned judgment'], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Sessions Court'] in Criminal Appeal No. 91/2023, titled as 'Mohd. Shoib v. State & Anr.', vide which the learned Sessions Court upheld the order dtd. 8/5/2023 passed by the learned MM-01 (Mahila Court), East, Karkardooma Court [hereafter 'Trial Court'] in Case No. 1331/2021, filed by the respondent no.2-wife under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter 'PWDV Act'], wherein the learned Trial Court had awarded interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.11,000.00 per month (Rs.5500.00 each for the wife and the minor daughter).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the parties were married on 19/12/2020 as per Muslim customs. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 2 is highly qualified, having completed MSc in Bioinformatics and NTT B.Ed., and was working as a school teacher in a reputed English medium school in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, at the time of marriage. He asserts that he had disclosed to her family that he held master's degrees and worked as a freelance tutor. The petitioner alleges that respondent no. 2 had left the matrimonial home on the pretext of visiting her parents and thereafter refused to return. A compromise was entered into, and the parties began residing in rented accommodation on 19/5/2021. After the demise of her mother, respondent no. 2 allegedly refused to rejoin the petitioner. The petitioner states that, being compelled, he had pronounced talaq through three letters dtd. 10/8/2021, 9/9/2021, and 8/10/2021, duly communicated via speed post and WhatsApp, as well as to relatives as per customary practice. He alleges that, thereafter, respondent no. 2 had initiated criminal proceedings against him and his family in Uttar Pradesh. Their daughter was born on 9/12/2021.

(3.) Respondent no. 2 thereafter filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the PWDV Act, asserting that she was married to the petitioner on 19/12/2020 and that he had abandoned her without reasonable cause and had refused to maintain her. She alleged that at the time of engagement, the petitioner's family had represented that he was a doctor earning Rs.1,50,000.00 per month and living a lavish lifestyle, and that soon after marriage, her jewellery and valuable articles were taken away by her mother-in-law. She levelled multiple allegations of domestic violence.