SHALU OJHA versus PRASHANT OJHA

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 04-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 642 
SHALU OJHA 
v. 
PRASHANT OJHA 
(SLP (Cr!.) No. 3935 of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 04, 2017 
(A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 
s. 12 - Application under - Maintenance sought by wife 
C (appellant) from husband (respondent) - interim maintenance of 
Rs. 2, 50, 0001- per month granted w.ef filing of complaint - Husband 
did not honour the order - Execution petition by wife for recovery 
of arrears of maintenance - Challenge to maintenance order by 
husband declined finally by Supreme Court, while observing that 
. D matter be referred for conciliation - Conciliation failed - High 
Courts order directing the husband to pay Rs. 10 lakhs each in two 
instalments - Wifes application seeking modification of the directions 
of High Court seeking entire arrears of maintenance - Appeal by 
wife for vacation of interim stay of execution proceedings - Allowed 
by Supreme Court directing to execute the maintenance order -
E Despite the order husband since did not clear the arrears, sent to 
judicial custody - Jn application of husband, Supreme Court directed 
the Sessions Court to decide the appeal of the husband on merit -
Sessions Court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 2,50,0001- P.M. 
to 50,0001- P.M. Wife challenged the order uls. 482 Cr.P. C. -
F Husband also filed petition uls. 482 Cr.P. C. seeking further 
reduction of the maintenance amount - Petition of husband 
dismissed by High Court and the order was further affirmed by 
Supreme Court - Pending the petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., wife filed 
present SLP challenging the order of Sessions Judge whereby he 
reduced the maintenance amount - Attempt .of Supreme Court for 
· G amicable solution failed - Family Court directed to decide the 
domestic violence proceedings within a period of eight weeks from 
the date of the present judgment - High Court directed to decide 
the pending application filed by the wife as regards correctness of 
order of Sessions Court whereby the maintenance amount was 
reduced. 
H 
642 
SHALU OJHA v. PRASHANT OJHA 
643 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave A 
Petition (Criminal) No.3935 of2016. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2015 passed by 
the Additional Session Judge, North West District Court, Rohini, New 
Delhi in C.A. No.75/2014. 
Shalu Ojha (petitioner-in-person). 
Sameer Rohatgi, Akshit Pradhan, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, 
Ms.Gayatri Gulati Sreyas, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
A.K. SIKRI, J. I. Though this case has a chequered history, 
C 
only those facts which are very material are taken note of, eschewing 
other unnecessary details, in order to avoid burdening this judgment with 
the facts which may not be relevant. 
· 2. The petitioner is the respondent's wife. It is unfortunate that 
after their marriage on April 20, 2007 in Delhi, they stayed together D 
hardly for four months. Thus, for almost ten years they have parted 
company and are living separately. It is not necessary to go into the 
reasons which led to the matrimonial discord as in the present petition 
this Court is concerned only with the dispute regarding the rate of 
maintenance. 
3. The petitioner had filed an application sometime in June 2009 
claiming maintenance under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protectiori 
· of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to 
as the 'DV Act'). In th11t application, apart from ~ther reliefs, she has 
claimed maintenance as well. Order dated July05, 2012 was passed by 
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate granting interim maintenance @ 
Rs.2,50,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the complaint 
as well as compensation ofRs.1,00,000/-. Since the respondent did not 
honour the said order, the petitioner filed the execution petition for 
·recovery of the arrears of maintenance. In the meantime, the respondent 
challenged the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting maintenance, 
by filing appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, in the Court of Additional 
Sessions Judge, Delhi (for short, the 'ASJ'). In the said appeal, the 
leamedASJ issued interim directions dated January I 0, 2013 for depositing 
of the entire arrears of maintenance within two months. As this order 
was not complied with, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed 
E 
F 
G 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A on May 07, 2013. This order of dismissal was challenged
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.