Karkardooma court dismissed wife’s appeal seeking interim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act alleging harassment and cruelty by husband. Court observed that she had forcibly occupied the house of the husband, forged documents and implicated 13 members of husband’s family in rape and dowry harassment case.

Sessions Judge Sanjay Sharma upheld the order of Mahila court which had rejected the woman’s plea for interim maintenance. The court held that there was no illegality in the trial court’s decision and therefore declined to interfere with the order.

While dismissing the appeal, court examined criminal cases filed by both sides and noted the absence of documentary evidence supporting the allegations made by the complainant.

The court noted that the complainant first approached CAW Cell on July 14, 2023, her FIR was registered on February 13, 2024, in which she implicated 13 members of the respondent’s family with allegations of dowry harassment as well as rape and unnatural intercourse. The court observed that such serious allegations themselves amounted to cruelty against the respondent.

It further observed that the marriage between the parties lasted only about 1 year and 4 months, and the complainant had not produced documentary evidence before the trial court to substantiate her claims, except the CAW Cell complaint that was later converted into an FIR u/s 498A, 406, 376 and 377 IPC.

Counsel for the husband argued that the complainant did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under DV Act and alleged that she and her family had thrown the respondent’s mother out of her own house and forcibly occupied the property.

It was also submitted that forged documents relating to the residential flat had been prepared and that the husband and his mother were currently living in rented accommodation while the complainant continued to occupy the disputed property.

After considering the submissions and the material on record, sessions court upheld the trial court’s findings and dismissed the appeal.