Full Text
CRL.M.C.709/2021 &CRL.M.A.3464/2021
RAVINDRAPRATAPSINGHTOMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr Prashant Mendiratta and Mr Jasmeet Singh,Advocates.
Ms Manisha Aggarwal Narain and Mr Abhishek Paruthi,Advocates.
12.04.2021 The petitioner,vide the present petition seeks the setting aside ofthe impugned order dated 05.08.2020 of the learned Principal Jude, Family
Courts,North East District,KKD Courts,Delhi in M.No.19/18 as well as consequential stay of an order dated 07.11.2017 till disposal ofthe main petition underSection 127ofthe Cr.PCpending beforethelearnedPrincipal
Judge,Family Courts,North Bast.
Pleadings qua this petition are complete and the submissions have been made on behalfofboth the sides. The order dated 07.11.2017 passed in MT No.329/2016 ofthe Court ofPrincipal Judge,Family Court,KKD disposed of an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC filed by the petitioner thereof(the respondent to the present petition)seeking grant of interim maintenance. Vide the said order, the application for interim
2021:DHC:4481 L maintenance was partly allowed and the respondent to that petition (the petitioner herein)was directed to pay asum ofRs.25,800/-per month tothe petitioner's wife as interim maintenance with effect from 18.10.2016, the date offiling ofthe presentpetition and regularly,thereafter,till disposalof the main petition. Crl.Rev.P.282/2018 wasfiled by the presentpetitioner before this Court along with Crl.M.A. 33856/2018 seeking stay of the operation ofthe order dated 07.11.2017,ithaving beensubmitted,interalia, that the petitioner herein had sought modification ofthe directions dated
09.08.2018 m Crl.Rev.282/2018, whereby the Court had directed the petitioner to depositthe entire outstanding amount,submitting to the effect that there are some documents, which had come to the knowledge ofthe petitioner and,thereafter, vide order dated 08.10.2018 in Crl.Rev.282/2018 on the statement made on behalfofthe petitioner that the petitioner would deposit the remaining 25% ofthe maintenance amount, i.e. Rs.1,12,500/- plus Rs.40,000/-,the same was directed to be deposited and the matter was re-notified for 16.10.2018. Crl.Rev.282/2018 was, however, dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.10.2018 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies as may be available in law. It has been submitted on behalfofthe petitioner that the said Crl.Rev.282/2018 was withdrawn qua which it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent herein that an application under section 127 of the Cr.PC seeking cancellation/modification of the order dated 07.11.2017 due to change in circumstances had been filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, KKD, North East and the copy of the same was annexed to
Crl.M.A.34056/2018. The averments made therein categorically in paragraph 6thereofto the effect:-
/ ^6 That m the meanwhile, the respondent/husband was advised tofde the present application since there are serious changed circumstances in hisfavour warranting dismissal of t e claim of the petitioner for maintenance. The respondent/husband- was advised that he should seek withdrawal ofthe Crl. Rev. Petition No.282 of2018 titled as
HIGH COURT OF DELHI order to move an appropriate application before this Hon'ble
Court under Section 127 Cr.PC. in view of the change in circumstances. The respondentfiled an application bearing
Crl.M.A.^ No.34055/2018 whereby he soughtpermissionfrom
HIGH COURT OF DELHI saidCrl.Rev.PetitionNo.282of2018with libertytofilepresent application before thisHon'ble Court. Thesaidapplication was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Crl.M.A.No.34055/2018 for withdrawal of the petition are annexed hereto asAnnexureA-1(Colly)."
The premise ofthe petitioner is to the effect that the respondent had made a false statement that she was not working at the time ofthe order dated 07.11.2017. Ithaving been submitted tothe effectthattherespondent infact had been working with IRIS KPO Resourcing(India)Pvt. Ltd. from
14.06.2017 till 27.12.2018 and had not brought the same to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court on the date (07.11.2018) and that the interim maintenance was awarded to her when in fact she was working. Reply has been filed on behalfofthe respondentto the present petition wherein it has been categorically stated therein that Ruby was unemployed and had no source of income at the time when she filed the application for her maintenance. However,Rubygotan employmentwithIRISKPO at Chennai from 14.06.2017ata salary ofRs.25,000.00per mensum. Her salary was increased to Rs.27,759.00 per month from OI.05.20IS. Shri Ravindra
Tomar had not made any monetary provision for Ruby's maintenance.
Therefore,shehadtotakeoutajob toekeoutalivingforhersurvivaland soon after the maintenance amount was paid to her, she left thejob at
Chennai as it was notfeasiblefor her due to her studies and being permanentresidentofDelhi. Rubyresignedherjob and wasrelievedfrom employmenton 27.12.2018. Thus,she was earning the abovesalaryfrom
14.06.2017till27.12.2018.
Thus, stating to the effect that she was getting a salary of
Rs.25,000/- per month from 14.06.2017, which was enhanced to
Rs.27,750/-per monthfrom 01.05.2018and she wasemployed withIRIS
KPOatChennaifrom 14.06.2017till27.12.2018. Therespondentthrough thereply apologisesfornotinformingtheTrialCourtaboutheremployment and also apologises thatthe faetum ofthe employment was not disclosed in her exammation-in-chief and states that she realizes her serious acts of omission and ofmaking an incorrect statementin her affidavit and offers an unconditional apology for the same with her having undertaken to be more caieful in future and to abide by the truth in her action and statements. The respondentfurtherthrough this very reply states as under:-
'"''Reply to the Grounds A. Denied as stated. Submissions made in preceding paragraphs be referred to. Ruby had already given up her claimfor interim maintenancefor theperiod 14.06.2017 to
27.12.2018 when she was employed with IRIS KPO. Shri
Ravindra Tomar cannot escape his liability to pay the interim maintenance toRubyfor the balance amount. Other averments are denied.
B. Denied. Para B of the grounds is repitative and its averments have been answered in previous paragraphs which may kingly bereferred to.
C. Denied asstated. Itis stated that this Hon'ble Courthas to balance the equities. The conductofthePetitioner has been despicable and even this Court has held him guilty of violating his undertakings to and the orders ofhis Hon'ble
Court.
D.Denied. It is denied that the Respondent is reaping any fruit/benefits ofthe interim order. It is submitted that the
Petitioner has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance after 12.08.2018. The Respondent is availing her rights available to her in law.
E. Denied. Itis denied thatthe application is dismissed by the
Learned Trial Court arbitrarily or withoutfollowing the well-established principles of law. It is denied that the
Learned Trial Court should have initiate proceedings againsttheRespondentorshe hascommittedanyperjury.
F. Denied. It is denied that the Learned Trial Court was indijferent tofacts oflays down and any wrong trend which is against any principles ofthe interim maintenance under law. This Hon'ble Court may kindly balance the equities between theparties.
G.Denied. The averments in correspondingpara are repetitive and have been replied to inpreviousparagraphs which may kindly be referred to. It is further submitted that the
Respondent was notcorrectly guided by her earlier counsel.
She is a layman and not conversant with the procedure of the Courts.
H.Denied. Order dated 07.11.2017 is matter ofrecord. It is denied that the Respondent was working at IRIS KPO
Resourcing with the name ofRuby Rani or the order dated
07.11.2017oughtto have been recalled orsetaside.
I. Denied. The averments in correspondingpara are repetitive and have been replied to inpreviousparagraphs which may kindly be referred to."
The respondent has further stated through this reply thatthe petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.4,90,000/- to her pursuant to the orders in
Crl.Rev.P.282/2018 butthatthereafter,he had not paid any further amount tilldateandthatthearrearsason 18.03.2021 amounttoRs.13,86,320/-. She hasfurther stated vide paragraph(1)ofherreply thatRuby herebyconveys that fortunately she has got an appointment as a Consultant with
SandMartm Global Outsourcing LLPfrom 19.01.2021. Para 7 ofthe employmentagreementspecificallystates that "this contractwillbeforthe periodfrom 19-"Jan 2021 till W April. 2021..."A true copy ofthesaid letter isfiled herewith asAnnexure A. thus, submitting to the effect that she has since been working with effect from 19.01.2021 till 18.04.2021.
Itis submitted on behalfofthelearned counselfortherespondentthat a typographical error has crept in and that the amount ought to be read as
Rs.13,67,400/- out ofwhich a sum ofRs.4,90,000/- have been paid to the respondent with ithaving been submitted furtheron behalfoftherespondent that a sum ofRs.49,880/- from 19.01.2021 to 18.03.2021 has also not been claimed from thepetitionerandthus,the balance due isRs.8,76,400/-,which the respondent thus submitted is the undisputed amount due be paid to the respondent.
It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent has made an erroneous statement also before the Court in her testimony and before the Trial Court in her testimony recorded on
17.09.2018 placing reliance on the cross-examination of the respondent conducted on 17.09.2018 and 19.01.2019 beforethe learned Family Courtto contend to the effect that erroneous statements have been made by the respondent stating to the effect:- u
"Ihave only one bankaccountin StateBankofIndia, ITO. Icanprovide the bankaccountstatementoflastthree years ofmy bankaccount. Again said,Ihadopeneditonly two years back so Ican provide the statement oflast two years. It is wrong to suggest that I have another bank accountin Chennai. Ihave neverdemandedtheHonda City
Carfrom therespondentin writing.
Itis wrongtosuggestthatIam workingforIRISKPO ResourcingIndiaPrivate Ltd. It us wrong to suggestthatI hadjoinedIRSKPOResourcingIndiaPvt.Ltd. by the name of Ruby Rani. I have no knowledge if PF Account
NO.TLMAS/53526/10832 is my Provident Fund Account
Number or not. I cannot say ifthe photograph Mark B contains the whitescooty atpointB which belongs to me. I canproducetheRCofthescootyownedby me. Icannotsay ifthedocumentMarkCrelates to thescootyownedby me. I have used debit card ofState Bank ofIndia. Iam using mobilephone no.8447798292. Thesaidnumber is ofDelhi.
Icome and stay in Delhi every monthfor about 10 to 15 days. Ihadshifted to the house ofmy brother in Chennaiin
2017 but I do not remember the month. It is wrong to suggest that I am staying in Chennai since 2016. I had given my Delhi address in my income affidavit. I do not remember ifIhad disclosed in my income affidavitthat1am residing in Chennai. From F' January, 2018 to P'
September,2018,Ihave been to Delhiaboutfive times. The ticketsfor air travel between Delhi to Chennai in these last five occasions werepaid by my brother andfather. Ifgiven time,Icanproduce theprinouts ofthe air tickets by whichI had travelled from Delhi to Chennai on these last five occasions. Ido have Aadhar Card. Iam notan income tax payee. Ido not have any receipts/billsfor buyingpetrolfor my scooty. However,Imight have billsfor maintenance of the scooty and Ican provide the same ifgiven time. The scooty which is in Chennai gets service in Chennai and I spendaboutRs.2000to 3000on everyservice ofthescooty.
Itis wrong to suggestthatIdo nothave any expenses to payfor maintenance ofmy scooty and that is whyIhave
IX notproducedany billsfor the same. It is wrong to suggest that the Bio-Data MarkA belongs to me and the same was given by meto the respondentsfamily before marriage Itis wrong to suggest that the honda city car was never demandedbytherespondentoranyonefrom hisfamily. Itis wrong to suggest that no talks ever tookplace between my
Jather andrespondent'sfather regarding higher modelofa car.
Referencehasalso been madeon behalfofthepetitionertothe testimony dated 19.01.2019to the effect:-
CurrentlyIam having two bank accounts only. Iam also having one another bank accountthat was opened by me for my mothersomewhere in theyear 2009and wasshutdown lastyear in 2018. Ihave one bankaccountofSBIin Delhiand myother bankaccountis ofIDFCBankin Chennai butIdo not remember the branch butIcan tell the accountnumberandthe branch on the next date. It is correct that the bank account which Isay Iopenedfor my mother was opened only in my name and my mother's name was not there either as ajoint account holder or as a nominee. Iclosed the said account in the year 2018 but I do not remember the month. The said account which was in my name which was close din 2018 was in Bank ofBaroda, Bhajanpura Branch. It is correct that in anyproceedings before any Court. Ihave neither disclosed the account number ofthose bank accounts nor disclosed what was the balance. It is wrong to suggestthatIhavesome more bank accounts in my name, the details ofwhichIma hidingfrom the
Court. Itis wrong to suggestthatIhave ben issued any credit card by anyfinancialinstitution. Ihave not beenprovidedany credit cardfrom anyfinancial institution w.e.f. January, 2012 to December, 2018. Mostly the air tickets by which I travel from Chennai to New Delhi are booked by my brother. It is possible thatI would have paidfor my air tickets through my bank accounts. The entry transfers of Rs.62,500/- and
Rs.50,000/- on 29.08.2018 have been transferred by the respondent. It is correct thatIhaveprovided only the number of SBI Bank to the respondent and that is the reason the transfers ofinterim maintenance are only in the State Bank of
India account atITO, New Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that there are heavy transactions in the bank of baroda account which is in my name or the same is still operational. Voin,I hadclosedthesame bygiving written application to the bankin
ORDER
2018. It is correct that my IDFC Chennai account is still operational. However, it is wrong to suggest that there are heavy transactions in the said bank account. I think, I had opened myIDFC bank account in 2017 butIdo notremember the month ordate. Ido notrememberthe bankaccountnumber ofmy account with IDFC ChennaiBranch. Ican provide the bank account number ofIDFC Bank on the next date. Ican provide the bank account statement ofIDFC Bank, Chennai Branchfrom the date ofopening till date on the next date of hearing." It has thus been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the lespondent has infact made a false statement stating that she has only one bank accountinthe State Bank ofIndia,ITO. At present,the Court is not entering into the domain ofthe aspect of alleged and deliberate falsity of the statements made by the petitioner. Duiing the course ofproceedings in MT No.329/2016 it is always open to the petitioner to seek further remedies in accordance with law for alleged false statement made by the respondent. The reply ofthe respondent clearly states that she was working with IRIS KPO from 14.06.2017 to 27.12.2018 for which period the amount of maintenance amounts to Rs. Rs.4,82,460/- in terms of the order dated 07.11.2017passed bythe learned Family Court. Itis apparentthusthatthere has been an unjustenrichmentforthesametotherespondentherein. Reliance is sought to be placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Am.: Crl.A.730/2020. Reliance hasbeen placed onbehalfofthepetitionerthusto Final Directions detailed in the said judgment, which are reproduced below:- ^'FinalDirections In view oftheforegoing discussion as contained in art - to Vofthisjudgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers underArticle142ofthe Constitution ofIndia: (a)Issueofoverlappingjurisdiction To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders beingpassed in differentproceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is unformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claimsfor maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in thesubsequentproceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatoryfor the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in thesubsequentproceeding; (Hi) ifthe order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be requiredto be done in thesameproceeding. (b)PaymentofInterim Maintenance The Affidavit ofDisclosure ofAssets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, IIand III ofthisjudgment, as may be applicable,shall befiled by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughoutthe country. \
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Courtshall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B IIIofthejudgment. The aforesaidfactors are however notexhaustive,andthe concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consideranyotherfactor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances ofa case. (d)Datefrom which maintenance is to be awarded We make itclear thatmaintenance in allcases will be awardedfrom the date offiling the applicationfor maintenance, as heldin PartB-IVabove. (e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenanceForenforcement/execution ofordersof maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) ofthe D.V. Act, and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforcedas a money decree ofa civilcourtasper the provisions ofthe CPC, moreparticularly Sections 51, 55, 58,60r.w. OrderXXI." Reliance is specifically placed on behalf of the petitioner on the declaration required to be submitted in terms ofthe said final directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in relation to the requirement ofmaking a full and accurate disclosure ofincome,expenditure,assets and liabilities from all sources with it having been also specified herein vide clause 3 of the declaration to the effect that the deponent would understand that any false statement in this affidavit, apart from being contempt of Court, may also constitute an offence under Section 199 read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto seven years and fine, and Section 209 ofIndian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment upto two years and fine.Ihave read and understood Sections 191,193,199 and 209oftheIndianPenal Code,1860. Reliance has also been placed on the verdict ofthis Court in Kusum Sharma y. Mahinder Kumar Sharma: FAO 369/1996 decided on 06.08.2020 with it having been submitted that the requisite declaration has been directedto besubmittedtherein alsotothe effectthat: Declaration: 1.1solemnlydeclareandaffirm thatIhave madetrue,accurate and complete disclosure ofmy income, expenditure, assets and liabilitiesfrom all sources.Ifurther declare and affirm thatI have no assets, income, expenditure and liabilities other than setoutin this affidavit.
2. I undertake to inform this Court immediately upon any material change in my employment, assets, income, expenditure or any other information disclosed in this affidavit.
3. Ihereby declare that the contents ofthis affidavit have been dulyexplainedto meandhave been understood by me.
4. The copies ofthe documentsfiled with the affidavit are the true copies ofthe originals andIhave selfattested the copies after comparingthem with their originals.
5. I understand that any false statement made in this affidavit may constitute an offence under Section 199read with Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment up to seven years andfine, and Section 209 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment up to two years and fine. I have read and understoodSections 191, 193, 199and209oftheIndian Penal Code, 1860." It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that at the time of institution ofpetition, in which the order dated 07.11.2017 has been made, the respondent herein wasnot working and a false statement had not been made. In view ofthe statement made on behaifofthe respondent by the learned counsel for the respondent that at the time ofinstitution ofthe petition underSection 125oftheCr.PC,1973,therespondentherein i.e.the petitioner of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, was not gainfully employed as has already been obseived above butthis Courthas notgonetotheaspectofanyallegedfalsestatement,thisCourthasobserved hereinabove that the maintenance for the period 14.06.2017 to 27.12.2018 was apparently not due to the respondent. In view thereof, a sum of Rs.4,82,460/- received by the respondent for the period 14.06.2021 to 27.12.2018 is directed to be deposited by the respondent to the present petition before the learned Family Couif,North Eastin MT No.19/2018 in theform ofanFDR within aperiod oftwenty-onedays,thereleaseofwhich would be subjecttothe outcomeofproceedingsin MTNo.19/2018. The petition is disposed of,accordingly.
APRIL 12,2021 MK ANU MALHOTRA,J \