Shammi Sehgal v. Ridhima Kruch

1. Appellant impugns Order dated 30.05.2022 whereby on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month has been awarded to the Respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is in a private job, and his total income is Rs.15,000/- per month, and the Family Court has assessed the income at a higher level.

3. Respondent had filed an application contending that the Appellant is a Real Estate Businessman, and is earning more than KANT MENDIRATTA 17:50 Rs.1,00,000/- a month, and she had prayed for maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. In the income affidavit filed by the Appellant, his contention is that he is in a private job. No details of the private job or employment have been given. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the Appellant was not able to satisfactorily explain as to where the Appellant is working. The stand of the Appellant kept changing during submissions; from service to odd job to working in the office of a property broker. Once again, no details of the employer, if any, or of the place of business are forthcoming. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant that he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and that also from a private job.

5. There is no material placed by the Appellant on record to show as to what is the profession/employment of the Appellant, and what is his income.

6. Accordingly, we find no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Family Court. The Family Court has, prima facie, accepted the affidavit of the Appellant where he has contended that he is doing service and is earning Rs.15,000/-. In those circumstances, a sum of Rs.7000/- has been assessed as the maintenance amount. In case, the contention of the Respondent is correct that Appellant is property broker businessman then his income would be far more than Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order to the said extent.

7. Another contention has been raised by the learned counsel for 17:50 the Appellant that parties are already divorced. Reliance is also placed on a document which is a document executed by the parties, styled as ‘Mutual Divorce’ on a Rs. 100/- Stamp Paper.

8. Admittedly, the parties are Hindu by religion and have got married as per the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Such a document of mutual divorce prepared inter se the parties without approaching a court of law is of no consequence and has no force in the eyes of law even if it is not challenged by either party. Thus the contention of the Appellant that parties are mutually divorced is not sustainable.

9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J DECEMBER 7, 2022 17:50