Ca No.

135/13 vs Shailesh Gupta on 18 March, 2014

Delhi District Court

Ca No. 135/13 vs Shailesh Gupta on 18 March, 2014
Author: Ms. Anuradha Bhardwaj
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ

ASJ−02 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

CA No. 135/13
Shilpa Gupta
W/o Shailesh Gupta
D/o Sh. Suresh Maheshwari
at Flat No. 202, Plot No. 383/12,
West Guru Angad Nagar,
Gurudwara Road,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi−110092
.............Appellant

Versus
Shailesh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Bal Kishan Bansal
R/o 4694/21A, II Floor,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi
............ Respondent

ORDER

1. The revision was filed u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of Ld. Trial Court passed in a
complaint u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act.

2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent took a preliminary objection Crl. (A) No. 135/13 Page 1 of 4 Shilpa
Gupta Vs. Shailesh that the revision was not maintainable in its given form as appeal u/s 29 of D.V.
Act and not revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the impugned order.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed the amended memo along with amended cause title with
the request to treat the petition as an appeal u/s 29 of DV Act, since the contents and prayer remains
the same. The petition shall be teated as an appeal u/s 29 of D.V. Act.

4. On merit it was argued that the appellant, who was married to the respondent, is dependent for
her livelihood upon the respondent. Ld. Trial Court has committed an error in concluding that she is
capable to work and so cannot be granted maintenance. It is argued that it cannot be decided at a
prima facie stage as to whether the petitioner is capable of working or not and that appellant not
doing any work at present, shall be presumed to be dependent upon the husband. Ld. Counsel for
the respondent on the other hand argued that as per her own admission the appellant was working
before her marriage. It was argued that she is an independent woman and can maintain herself.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162890968/ 1

 Ca No. 135/13 vs Shailesh Gupta on 18 March, 2014

Crl. (A) No. 135/13 Page 2 of 4 Shilpa Gupta Vs. Shailesh

5. Argument heard. Record Perused.

6. The appellant in her complaint before the trial court stated that she was doing the small business
of fashion designer in the name of M/s She Fab Expose in Delhi. There is an admission on part of
the appellant that she was working and thus is capable of working. It is not pleaded as to how her
marriage has rendered her incapable of continuing the work which she was doing prior to her
marriage. The couple does not have any child and therefore the appellant is as independent as the
respondent to work and maintain herself.

In 171 (2010) DLT 644, Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. State the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that
where the parties have equal educational qualification, both must take care of themselves and
dismissed the revision of the wife.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No. 344/11 dated 14/09/12, Damanreet Kaur Vs.
Indermeet Juneja also dismissed the petition of the wife holding that she was capable to work.

7. In view of the judgments the Hon'ble High Court of Crl. (A) No. 135/13 Page 3 of 4 Shilpa Gupta
Vs. Shailesh Delhi where it has been held that wherever the wife is capable to work and had been
working, she shall not be considered dependent upon the husband for her survival, there is no
apparent error in the order of Ld. Trial Court.

8. In view of above the appeal is dismissed. TCR be sent back along with copy of order. Appeal file be
consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court on 18/03/14 (ANURADHA SHUKLA
BHARDWAJ) ASJ−02, (EAST) KKD COURTS/DELHI Crl. (A) No. 135/13 Page 4 of 4 Shilpa Gupta
Vs. Shailesh

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162890968/ 2