Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
NARENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Ms Chetna, Advocate.
Through: Mr Abhey Narula, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
AMIT BANSAL, J.:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant (‘Husband’) impugning the order dated 18th March, 2019, passed by the learned Principal Judge (South), Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi (‘Family Court’) whereby, the application filed by the Respondent (‘Wife’) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (‘HMA’) was disposed of, directing the Husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance until the disposal of the divorce petition filed by the Wife under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA.
2. In the present appeal, the parties were referred to mediation by the predecessor bench. However, as noted in the order dated 17th July, 2019, the mediation was not successful.
3. By way of an interim order dated 8th May, 2019, passed by the predecessor bench, the Husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/per month to the Wife, without prejudice to the rights of the parties.
4. Subsequently, vide order dated 16th March, 2023, the parties were directed to file income affidavits in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 334. Vide order dated 13th September, 2023, Trial Court Record (TCR) was requisitioned. After hearing the counsels for the parties, judgement was reserved on 10th January,
2024. Parties were given liberty to file brief note of arguments, which have been filed on behalf of the parties.
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are set out hereinafter: 5.[1] The parties got married on 9th February, 1996, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born from the said wedlock on 17th November, 1997 and 14th October, 2000, respectively. 5.[2] In the year 1998, the sister of the Husband died, leaving behind two children and the responsibility of bringing up the said children came upon the Husband. 5.[3] The Husband has been taking care of the education/ lodging extracurricular activities/ tuitions etc., of the two children born from the wedlock as well as his niece and nephew. 5.[4] The Wife had preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) dated 22nd March 2013. Vide judgement dated 17th August, 2016, the petition came to be dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 5.[5] Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the Wife preferred a criminal appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which came to be dismissed. Subsequently, a criminal revision petition has been filed by the Wife, which is pending adjudication before this Court.
6. The present petition arises from a petition filed by the Wife seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the HMA dated 3rd February, 2017, before the Family Court (hereinafter referred as ‘divorce proceedings’).
7. Along with the divorce petition, the Wife moved an application under Section 24 of the HMA dated 3rd February, 2017, seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per month besides seeking medical expenses, litigation expenses and a place for alternate accommodation during the pendency of the divorce proceedings.
8. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the Husband volunteered to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month. Thereafter, the Husband voluntarily increased the said amount to Rs.25,000/- per month.
9. By way of the impugned order, the Family Court, while assessing the monthly income of the Husband in the range of Rs. 5 Lakhs to 8 Lakhs, directed the Husband to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month as interim maintenance with effect from the date of filing the application till the decision in the divorce proceedings. The operative portions of the order passed by the Family Court have been set out below:
10. Assailing the impugned order of the Family Court, the Husband approached this Court by way of the present appeal seeking setting aside of the aforementioned order qua interim maintenance.
11. Broadly, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Husband has made the following submissions before this Court:
I. The Family Court has erred in assessing the income of the Husband to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs to 8 Lakhs per month. The Husband is working as an Assistant Engineer with the Delhi Jal Board wherein his last drawn salary is Rs.1,04,774/- per month. The income affidavit dated 22nd July, 2023, filed on behalf of the Husband clearly establishes that the income of the Husband is nowhere close to the amount as assessed by the Family Court.
II. The Husband has financial commitments towards the upkeep of all four children and therefore he is not in a position to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the Wife by way of interim maintenance.
III. The contention of the Wife that the Husband earns from multiple sources is incorrect. The Husband does not have any business or other sources of income.
IV. The claim of the Wife that ONGC is a tenant of the property bearing
No. C-33, Sector 34, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (‘Noida Property’), owned by the Husband is incorrect. ONGC vacated the Noida Property on 30th April, 2018. The said Noida Property has thereafter been leased and is fetching a monthly rental of Rs.35,000/-.
V. The Wife is well-qualified to make her own living rather than depending upon the Husband.
12. Per Contra, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Wife has made the following submissions before this Court:
I. The Family Court has granted the interim maintenance based on the documents on record, including Income Tax Records (ITRs), Balance Sheets and Bank Statements filed by the Husband.
II. As per the documents placed on record, it is evident that the Husband is a man of means and has substantial rental/business income and owns several properties.
III. In the income affidavit dated 22nd
July, 2023 filed on behalf of the Husband, the Husband has deliberately concealed details such as the Bank Statements/ ITRs for the companies incorporated by him, the Proprietorship Concerns, his HUF and/or details of income, including from the sale of assets.
IV. It is evident from the record, before the Family Court that the
Husband owns a resort at Mukteshwar, Uttarakhand. Further, the Husband owns multiple luxury cars including Audi A[6] and Octavia.
V. The Husband has admitted before the Family Court that he holds 11 bank accounts. However, the Husband has not filed the statements relating to the said accounts before this Court. Further, the Husband has large cash deposits in his account and is making repeated transfers to his Demat Account.
VI. The Wife is suffering from multiple health conditions and is residing in a single-room rented accommodation. After paying the monthly rental of Rs.17,500/-, the Wife is unable to fend for herself.
13. We have heard the counsels for the parties and examined the material on record.
14. It has been admitted by the Husband that he is working as an Assistant Engineer with the Delhi Jal Board and is drawing a salary of Rs.1,04,774/- per month.
15. In the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the Husband, it is stated that the Husband owns multiple properties i.e., the Noida Property, one 2- BHK property at Greater Kailash-II, one agricultural land admeasuring 240 sq. yards in village Supi, Nainital and one ancestral land in village Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.
16. It is a matter of record that the Noida Property was leased by the Husband to ONGC. However, the Husband has not placed the lease deed with ONGC on record. It is the contention of the Wife that as per the Bank Statements of the Husband, filed before the Family Court, ONGC was paying a monthly rental in excess of Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, the Husband had admitted in the proceedings under the DV Act, as far back as on 30th August, 2013, that the Noida Property was fetching a monthly rental of Rs.2,85,000/-.
17. Now, before this Court, the Husband seeks to contend that the Noida Property is fetching a monthly rental of Rs.35,000/-. In this regard, he has placed on record a Rent Agreement dated 16th Match, 2019. It is to be noted that the aforesaid Rent Agreement between the Husband and one Rajbir Mishra, is an unregistered document. Further, there are no witnesses who affirm to the signing of the said document.
18. In these circumstances, it is hard to believe that the Noida Property (admeasuring 300 sq. yards and comprising of 3 floors) owned by the Husband which was fetching a monthly rental of Rs.2,85,000/-, way back in 2013, would now be fetching a monthly rental of Rs.35,000/-, as contented by the Husband. In our view, the aforesaid Rent Agreement has been created only for the purpose of the present case.
19. The Family Court has correctly noted that, on one hand, the Husband states to have taken a business loan of Rs.90 Lakhs for which he is paying EMIs, whereas, on the other hand, he claims that he has given a ‘friendly loan’ of Rs. 1.63 Crores to his neighbour for construction of his house. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extract from the impugned order is set out below: