* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 32/2010
% Date of Decision: 28.03.2012
SONAL GUPTA ..... Petitioner-wife
Through : Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
versus
VINAYAK GUPTA ..... Respondent-wife
Through : Ms. Manali Singhal with
Ms. Monica Singhal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
* CM(M) No. 32/2010
1. By way of this petition, petitioner-wife has challenged the order dated 17th July, 2009 passed by the learned ADJ, Delhi in HMA 311/2007 whereby the application of the petitioner-wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') has been disposed of and a sum of Rs.6300/- per month has been awarded to her as maintenance pendent lite.
2. Petitioner-wife has moved an application under section 24 of the Act in a divorce petition filed by respondent-husband against her CM(M)32/2010 Page 1 of 8 u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Act seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the said application, petitioner-wife has alleged that respondent- husband is earning Rs.2 lacs per month and apart from salary, respondent-husband has income from various sources like shares, dividends, interest from savings etc. Petitioner-wife has further alleged that respondent-husband has various FDRs in his name and he owns various movable and immovable properties including a flat at Dwarka and also has a share in the joint family property at Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It is further alleged that respondent-husband owns a Ford Ikon car and is also having a good job in Merchant Navy. It is further alleged that his father is a Doctor and mother is having a boutique at Kamla Nagar. By way of the application, she has claimed an amount of Rs.35000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite.
3. Respondent-husband has filed reply by contending therein that he used to pay a sum of Rs.6300/- per month to the petitioner-wife which she had refused to accept after receiving the notice of divorce petition. Respondent-husband has denied that he ever earned a sum of Rs.2 lacs per month, as is alleged. He has alleged that he had drawn his last salary in the month of March, 2006 and thereafter, he has not CM(M)32/2010 Page 2 of 8 resumed his job on account of problems created by petitioner-wife. Respondent-husband has further stated in his reply that he was jobless since March, 2006 and he is dependent upon his parents. He has denied having income from shares, dividend, interest on savings etc. He has also denied that he owns any car and stated that it was in the name of his mother. However, he had admitted that his father is a Doctor and mother runs a small boutique at Kamla Nagar. He has resigned from his job in Merchant Navy in 8th March, 2006. Respondent-husband has also alleged that petitioner-wife has been working as a teacher in her own Family School at Darya Ganj and she draws a handsome salary. As per respondent-husband, she is not entitled for maintenance.
4. After considering the submissions of the parties and considering the material on record, the learned Addl. District Judge has held that in her application, petitioner-wife has not stated anything about her source of income, however, during the course of proceedings, on being directed, she filed an affidavit dated 23 rd April, 2009 wherein she has stated that she has an income of Rs.40,000/- per annum by way of dividends from mutual funds, bank interests etc. CM(M)32/2010 Page 3 of 8 Learned ADJ further observed that petitioner-wife has deliberately withheld the material information from the court and her application was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone itself. Ld.trial Judge further held that as the matter has been heard touching the job and income of respondent-husband, the application is being disposed of on merits.
5. After considering the salary certificate of respondent-husband, learned ADJ observed that respondent-husband was not getting salary of Rs.2 lacs per annum, as is alleged, and from the material on record his income upto 28th March, 2006, was around Rs.90,000/- per month and thereafter he was jobless. Nothing was placed by the petitioner- wife that respondent-husband has any source of income after March, 2006. Accordingly, application was disposed of with the direction to respondent-husband to pay to the petitioner-wife Rs.6300/- per month which he was already paying to her from the date of the filing of the said application. Aggrieved with the said order, present petition is filed.
6. On the directions of this court dated 26 th February, 2010, both the parties were directed to file their affidavits of assets as well as CM(M)32/2010 Page 4 of 8 income. Both the parties complied with the said direction and filed their respective affidavits.
7. Petitioner-wife has contended that meager amount of maintenance has been awarded whereas she is entitled for higher amount of maintenance pendent lite. It is contended that as per the affidavit of respondent-husband, he has got a new job and he has no other liability, as such, she is entitled for maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.25000/- per month.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has argued that respondent-husband has got a new job from February, 2011 i.e., after the disposal of application u/s 24 of the Act. Prior to that he was unemployed. His salary certificate is also placed on record, as per which, his gross salary is Rs.1,20,000/- and after deductions of PF:780/-, TDS: 20,000/-,. The net salary is Rs.99,220/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has pointed out that respondent jointly hold 10 shares of Indian company with her mother . He has got three F.Ds of Rs.25000/- each in State Bank of India. Respondent-husband had taken a personal loan of Rs.4 lacs from Citibank for which he is paying EMI of Rs.9516/- per month. CM(M)32/2010 Page 5 of 8 No other source of income of respondent-husband has been pointed out by the petitioner-wife.
9. Respondent-husband has also stated that he is living in Chennai in a rented accommodation and has to pay rent and is incurring expenses on food etc, details of which are given in para 5 of the affidavit. Nothing has been placed to substantiate the same. It is also stated that he has liability towards his parents and one sister.
10. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel that divorce petition filed by respondent-husband has been dismissed vide orders dated 28th February, 2012 for not leading any evidence in the said case.
11. Perusal of affidavit dated 8th April, 2010 of petitioner-wife shows that she is not having any income or she is engaged in any trade or business and her income is Rs.40000/- from dividend, mutual funds and bank interest. She also does not have any house. She has also given details of joint holding of mutual fund etc along with her father.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has stated that parents of respondent-husband are earning and he does not have any liability towards them. However, learned counsel for the respondent-husband CM(M)32/2010 Page 6 of 8 has pointed out that both his parents are over 70 years and for keeping them busy, they do little work. No material is placed on record by petitioner-wife to show that parents of respondent are earning handsome amount. Considering the age of parents, it cannot be said that respondent-husband has no responsibility towards them. From the bank statements and other statements annexed with affidavit of respondent-husband, nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner-wife to substantiate the allegations of alleged income of respondent-husband. There is nothing on record to show that respondent-husband owns any movable/immovable properties as is alleged.
13. Considering the material on record, no illegality is seen in the impugned order by which maintenance @ of Rs.6300/- per month has been awarded to the appellant from the date of application. However, after the disposal of the said application, respondent-husband has got new employment from 14th February, 2011. Divorce petition filed by him has been dismissed on 28th February, 2012. In these circumstances, petitioner-wife is entitled for grant of maintenance @ Rs.6300/- per month from the date of application till 13.2.2011. From CM(M)32/2010 Page 7 of 8 14th February, 2011 till the date of dismissal of divorce petition i.e 28 th February, 2012, she is granted maintenance pendente @ Rs.17000/- per month. Petitioner-wife is also granted litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-.
With the above direction, petition stands disposed of accordingly.
CM No. 405/2010 (stay) In view of the order on the main petition, no further orders are required on this application. The same stands disposed of accordingly.
VEENA BIRBAL, J MARCH 28, 2012 ssb CM(M)32/2010 Page 8 of 8