Anubha vs Vikas Aggarwal
2004 Latest Caselaw 1304 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by appellant impugning the order of the learned Single Judge whereby she was awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses, which order was reviewed and maintenance of US $ 500 per month was awarded subsequently.

2. It is an unfortunate case of a young girl seeking decree of declaration that she is entitled to live separately from respondent and decree for maintenance in her favor in the sum of US $ 1500 per month or Rs. 65,250/- per month or equivalent thereof towards the pendente lite expenses as she was deserted and abandon after being subjected to cruelty. The unfortunate incidents started when the appellant was married with the respondent on 11th May, 1999 at New Delhi. Appellant walked in to the darkest hours of her life when the appellant went with the respondent to the United States on 22nd May, 1999. In just less than two months everything, what is called marriage, ended as on 22nd July, 1999, the respondent initiated ''no fault divorce'' proceedings in the District Court at Connecticut, U.S.A. The summons was served on the appellant on the same day. The appellant and the respondent were residing at the same address in the United States. On the same day, 22nd July, 1999, the appellant was thrown out of the matrimonial home and she had to come back to India. Appellant is an educated women. She filed the suit in this Court on 6th September, 1999. The learned Single Judge of this Court on 5th November, 1999 restrained the respondent from proceeding further with his case in the Superior Court, State of Connecticut, U.S.A. for a period of thirty days from that date. It seems that the order of the learned Single Judge was not brought to the notice of the Court at Connecticut and the Connecticut Court passed a decree of divorce on 23rd November, 1999. On 9th March 2000 when these circumstances were brought to the notice of learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge issued contempt notice to the respondent on 9th March 2000. The respondent was served in the matter and filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was dismissed on 18th October 2000 and thereafter special leave petition was preferred by the respondent in the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed on 12th April 2002. On 20th May, 2004, the learned Single Judge awarded punishment to the respondent for committing contempt of the Court and sentenced the respondent to undergo imprisonment for three months and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of non-payment, further awarded one month imprisonment to the respondent. Neither the fine has been paid nor the respondent has undergone imprisonment. Even the notice of this appeal could not be served on the respondent by ordinary mode and, therefore, on the last date of hearing, i.e., on 10th August, 2004, we had directed that the respondent, who now lives in Canada, be served and directed the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs to send the process of this Court to the Indian High Commission in Canada and the First Secretary of the Indian High Commission in Canada was directed to make sure that service on the respondent was effected with the process of this Court. Respondent has been served by courier and affidavit in this regard has been filed by the appellant, however, we have not received the report of the First Secretary of the Indian High Commission. Let the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs seek report from the First Secretary of the Indian High Commission in Canada as to why the report has not been sent to this Court and the same be filed within four weeks in this Court.

3. This is one of those classic cases where Indian citizens who go abroad and marry Indian women and thereafter maltreat such women and inflict cruelty and dump them in alien and hostile environment without even bothering to give adequate maintenance. Such persons take advantage of the fact that they are outside the jurisdiction of the Courts of India and most of the time, battered married women do not have resources to fight back and bring the culprits to face the consequences of their wrong doings. To deal with such kind of cases and to counter the mischief of such people who exploit the women of this country, and who feel that the strong arms of law cannot reach them, stern action should be taken at every level against them and they should be made to pay such amount of maintenance as would be necessary to restore some dignity and comforts to such women to lead a normal life again. Therefore, in this regard, the duty is cast on the State that such persons who marry Indian women and then dump them in foreign countries by resorting to the laws of those countries for taking divorce, which may not be valid in India, and without giving any maintenance and without discharging their liabilities, to be served with the notices and the orders passed by the court through the embassies and High Commissions of India in those countries so as to bring them under the jurisdiction of the Courts to enforce the liabilities fastened on them under India law and to make them comply with the orders passed by the Courts in India. Indian citizens residing outside as NRIs either on account of having a residency permit or on account of having work permit should not be allowed to violate the rule of law of this country. So long they are citizens of India, they are not immne from the laws of this country and must be made to comply with the orders passed by the Courts in India.

4. In spite of order having been challenged by the respondent when he was faced with notice of contempt by the learned Single Judge, he chose the appellate forum to challenge that order before the Division Bench and thereafter in the Supreme Court. The respondent has not cared about the orders passed by this Court either regarding maintenance or regarding his presence before the Court.

5. In the appeal, a prayer has been made by the appellant that the maintenance be enhanced to $ 1500 per month as the respondent was earning initially a sum of US $ 4000 per month and thereafter US $ 6000 per month. In view of the averments made in written statement filed by the respondent, it is clear that after deduction of the Income Tax, his take home salary is US $ 3250 per month, out of which he alleged that he was paying rent of US $ 1200 per month. A plea was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that in case of non payment of maintenance awarded by the Court, the decree is to be executed in U.S.A., therefore, the maintenance allowance be fixed in US dollars and consequently maintenance of US $ 500 was awarded by the learned Single Judge which has not been challenged by respondent. The same plea has been raised by Sh. Chandhiok, learned counsel appearing for the appellant before us. Admittedly after deduction of the Income Tax, the take home salary of respondent is US $ 325 per month, which fact has not traversed and refuted by the respondent. There was no justification for the learned Single Judge not to grant at least 1/3rd of the salary of the respondent to the appellant as maintenance in view of such facts and circumstances. The plea of the respondent that he had to pay US $ 1200 per month as rent was also not supported by any supportive document except mere averment in the written statement and can not be relied on and accepted in determining the maintenance payable to the appellant.

6. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we enhance the maintenance to a minimum amount to US $ 1000 per month. The appellant, therefore, shall be entitled to an amount of US $ 1000 per month as maintenance from the respondent from the date of institution of the suit for maintenance. The appellant shall also be entitled to litigation expenses of US $ 5000 in the facts and circumstances of this case.

7. The appeal is allowed in terms hereof and disposed of accordingly.