June 02, 2019:
On Friday, The Delhi High Court rejected the challenge of a husband when it found that he was not disclosing true income and directed him to clear the arrears of maintenance within 6 weeks.
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.
Learned Counsel of the respondent has answered to first contention that at the time of the filing of the petition the petitioners 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.
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. It is contended that the petitioner runs a Raymond showroom in Fatehabad and has income of over Rs. 2.5 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.
The High Court found no substantial weight in the petitioner's claim that he gave up his well-furnished running business and took up employment at a very low income. The Court states it as self-contradictory.
High Court observed "Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as an employee at Rs.15,000/- per month is also not believable as no person would shut down his business of trading of clothes and take up an employment of only Rs.15,000/- per month and more so, especially, when his father also has similar showrooms retailing in clothes".
The fact that one of petitioner's two foreign trips was sponsored by Raymond, it freezes the fact that the he was a valuable dealer to them and the business had a good hold. The pictures too depict the same.
Perusal of the record clearly prima facie shows that the petitioner has several businesses and ownership of assets of much worth.
The Court opined that the petitioner must have an income much larger than what he disclosed but it is not directly putting questions on the assessment of Trial Court.
Observing all this, the High Court discarded the plea of the petitioner and sustained the direction given by the Trial Court.
The Order was delivered by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA on 31-05-2019.
Read the Order here:
