Nehavarshney v. Kamal Kant Varshney

1. On the last date ofhearing, this matter was taken up in the Chamber and after a detailed interaction with both the parties, they had agreed to amicably settle their dispute. In terms ofthe settlement, the respondent has agreed to pay a sum ofRs. 5 lakhs towards full and final settlement of all material claims of the appellant. The appellant, on the other hand, has agreed to withdraw the two cases filed by her against the respondent and his family members. Both the parties have also agreed that custody of the minor daughter will remain with the appellant and the respondent will be 2015:DHC:11716-DB r given visitation rights. Based on the above settlement between the parties, theytook time to file a Memorandum of Understanding so as to incorporate all terms ofsettlement therein.

2. To our surprise today, some more demands have been raised by the appellant so as to reserve the rightof the appellant andthe minor daughter in the ancestral property ofdie respondent.

3. Mr. G.D. Sharma, counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs would not be sufficient for the financial security of the appellant in her old days and in the same way, for the financial security ofthe minor daughter.

4. Mr. Ashok Gumani, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that the appellant has raised a fresh demand after agreeing to finally settle the dispute with the respondent on payment of a sum ofRs. 5 lakhs.

5. During the course of hearing in the present matter, we enquired from the respondent whether he is agreeable to take back the appellant to the matrimonial home, and in response, the respondent showed willingness for that. However, when the same question was posed to the appellant, she showed her complete resistance to stay with the respondent and that too, even if the respondent takes a separate residence. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the parties cannot reach any amicable settlement rather the Court has wasted its time with the hope that at least the parties would put an end to the litigation by settling their disputes amicably in one way or the other. Be that as it may, in the above circumstances, we have heard the counsel for the parties in the present appeal.

6. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 3^*^ November, 2014 passed in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Family Courts, East District, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. The maintenance amount of Rs. 3600/- per month has been awarded taking the income of the respondent as Rs. 7254/- per month. As per the appellant, the respondent has been running three shops namely Varshney Stationers; Kamal Sweets and Caterers; and one STD shop, from where he is earning an amount ofRs. 50,000/-per month. It is also the contentionof the appellant that she has placed on record some CDs to prove the fact that it is the respondent who had been dealing with the customers visiting the Sweets shop.

7. The stand of the respondent on the other hand, is that he has been working as a office boy in M/s Techno Inter and his monthly salary is Rs. r 7500/-. However, the Family Court assessed the income of the respondent on the basis of Minimum Wages as per which, his income was assessed as Rs. 7254/- per month.

8. After adjusting the said income of the respondent, learned Family Court awarded a sum of Rs. 3600/- towards interim maintenance of the wife and her daughter with effect from the date of filing of the application. This amount of Rs. 7254/- was divided into four parts out ofwhich two parts are to bekept bythe respondent being theearning member andtheappellant and the child wereentitled to onepart each. The Courtheld that boththe parties would get sufficient opportunities to lead evidence to prove their rival contentions.

9. While addressing arguments in the present appeal, counsel for the ^ appellant has drawn the attention ofthe Court to the fact that the appellant has recently admitted the child to Vidya Bal Bhawan Sr. Secondary School, Mayur Vihar Phase III, Delhi-110096 in pre-primary class and has paid an amount of Rs. 15725/- towards quarterly fee including tuition fee, admission fee, development charges etc. He has produced the original receipts. As per this receipt, an amount ofRs. 6930/- has been deposited towards tuition fee of the child. Taking note of the expenses spent towards edueation of the V child, we are of the view that the awarded amount of interim maintenance deserves to be enhanced. This development of admission of the minor child in the school has taken place during the pendency of the appeal, and therefore, this fact was not before the Family Court at the time ofpassing of the impugned order. Taking into consideration the amount of quarterly tuition fee, we enhance the maintenance from Rs. 3600/- to Rs. 5000/- per month from the date offiling ofthis appeal. So far as the issue of depositing of an amount of Rs. 15725/- is concerned, we direct the respondent to pay the same within a period oftwo weeks from today.

10. It is further directed that the respondent shall clear all pending arrears in terms of interim maintenance till this date.

11. The appeal and the pending application are disposed of with the above directions.

APRIL 30,2015 sd KAILASH GAMBHIR, J