Ishant Nagpal v. Pooja Nagpal & Another

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 20.01.2017, whereby, the Family Court has fixed interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month each for respondent No.1 wife and respondent No.2, minor son of the parties. 2019:DHC:2996

2. The contention of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, that the Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the respondents, at the time of the filing of the petition, were residing in Fatehabad and secondly, that the trial Court has erred in not correctly appreciating the income of the petitioner and has awarded interim maintenance far in excess of the income disclosed by the petitioner. Further it is contended that petitioner had to shut down his business for attending to litigation in Delhi and has taken up an employment @ Rs. 15,000/- per month.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents at the time of the filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were residing at Vinobhapuri, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and even presently are residing at the said address and as such the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

4. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has concealed his true income and the Trial Court has rightly assessed the interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month each for the respondents.

5. It is contended that the petitioner runs a Raymond showroom in Fatehabad and has income of over Rs.2½ lakhs per month and has concealed the same. He has several immovable properties in Fatehabad valued at several crores. Even his father has a flourishing business and also has a showroom of clothes and he employs several persons.

6. By the impugned order, the Trial Court, granted interim maintenance after noticing that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of Manglam Clothes at Fatehabad and has a Raymonds Showroom.

7. Subject petition impugns the order granting interim maintenance.

8. The Supreme Court of India in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.

9. Perusal of the record clearly prima facie shows that the petitioner has several businesses. Even in the income affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has stated that his occupation is Business (Cloth Merchant). He, in his income affidavit, has admitted that he is the sole proprietor of the said business. As per the affidavit, the value of his interest in the business is shown to be Rs.23,25,520/-.

10. He has further disclosed in his affidavit that he had taken two foreign trips, one to Singapore and the other to Thailand. However, he has contended that the trip to Singapore was gifted by his uncle and the trip to Thailand was sponsored by Raymonds for whom the deponent is a dealer.

11. The fact that the petitioner’s trip to Thailand was sponsored by Raymond shows that the showroom of the petitioner is of same repute. As no dealers would be sponsored for paid foreign trips unless said dealer has a turnover of a particular level.

12. Further, respondents have placed on record photographs of the showroom of the petitioner, which, prima facie, shows that the business premises itself are of some repute and seem to be containing substantial stock.

13. Further, respondents have placed on record documents to evidence that the petitioner is the owner of several immovable properties and had even transferred some properties for valuable consideration exceeding Rs.[1] crore.

14. Entire material placed by the respondents prima facie shows that the petitioner has not correctly disclosed his income. At the stage of granting interim maintenance, the Court has to prima facie look at the documents and make an assessment.

15. As noticed above, the material placed on record by the respondents ex-facie shows that the income of the petitioner would be far in excess of the income disclosed by him. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed an error in assessing the income of the petitioner.