Delhi High Court
Anita vs Bijender Singh on 10 November, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
40.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 222/2010
% Date of Judgment 10 November, 2010
ANITA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
versus
BIJENDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Robin Majumdar and Mr. Manish
Pathak, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the Judgment ? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.2008
passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application filed
by the petitioner (wife) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, in HMA No.405/08/06, seeking interim maintenance.
2. Marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on
23.1.2000. Out of their wedlock one daughter was born. Parties
are residing separately since the year 2003. The petitioner filed an
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking
interim maintenance which was dismissed by the trial court only
on the ground that petitioner had misrepresented and mislead the
Court and did not approach the Court with clean hands.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
residing in a rented accommodation whereas the address
mentioned in the memo of parties is of her parents. Trial court did
CM(M)NO.222/2010 Page 1 of 5
not find the explanation, rendered by the petitioner, to be
satisfactory as the summons were served on the petitioner at the
address mentioned in the memo of parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no
source of livelihood except `1000/-, which is being received by her
pursuant to the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate
in the proceedings filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Counsel
further submits that besides herself the petitioner has to maintain
her minor daughter, who is stated to be nine years of age, for
which she is relying upon her family for financial help as well as
emotional support.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that trial court has
rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act as the petitioner has given a different address in the
memo of parties and a different address has been given in
Annexure A-2, which has been filed along with the petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my
thoughtful consideration to the matter. A perusal of Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act makes it abundantly clear that the main
aim, object and intent is to enable either spouse, who has no
independent source of income for his or her support and
necessary expenses for proceeding under the Act to claim
maintenance and expenses during the pendency of the
proceedings in order to avoid any hardship on the person.
7. Courts have all along been extremely sensitive in dealing with
cases where parties have approached courts with unclean hands
and have suppressed and withheld material facts from the court.
No doubt the petitioner has given two addresses, one in the
CM(M)NO.222/2010 Page 2 of 5
memo of parties and the other in Annexure A-2, which were
brought to the notice of the trial court. Learned counsel for the
petitioner on a query raised by the trial court had explained that
the address mentioned in the memo of parties is the address of
the parents of the petitioner and the address mentioned in
Annexure A-2 is the address of House No.592/26, West Ram
Nagar, Sonipat, Haryana, which has been taken by her on rent.
8. It is not unusual for a young mother, who has to bring up a minor
child to fall back and rely upon her parents for financial help,
support and security. It is understandable that summons issued to
the petitioner at the address of her parents were received by her.
It is also not unusual that petitioner would have taken
accommodation on rent for the sake of her own independence or
for any other reason including paucity of accommodation in her
parental house or to allow other family members to live in
comfort.
9. While dealing with suppression of facts the court must satisfy
itself that the fact, which is suppressed is material for deciding the
issue between the parties. Suppression of any fact by itself cannot
deny equitable relief much less a relief, sought by the petitioner,
in this case on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, which provides relief to a spouse, who has no
independent source of income to maintain himself or herself. The
mere fact that two addresses were pointed out by the respondent
to the trial court would by itself not show that petitioner, who
seeks interim maintenance, has an independent source of income
to maintain herself and her minor daughter. It is well open to any
court to consider the effect of any suppression and in case the
CM(M)NO.222/2010 Page 3 of 5
court is satisfied that there is any willful suppression or the
suppression of facts have been made in order to steal an order
from the court, it is always open for the court to decide to what
extent such relief should be denied to such a person.
10. In the case of Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, reported at
(2007) 6 SCC 120, the Apex Court has defined "material" fact
would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis,
the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was
material for grant or denial of the relief. The Court has also held
that "if the facts suppressed are not material for determining the
lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to express its
discretionary jurisdiction".
11. Merely, because two addresses were mentioned, does it mean
that petitioner would become remediless and would not be
entitled for interim maintenance for herself and her minor
daughter. The answer is in negative. The learned trial court has
failed to state in its order the effect of two addresses of the
petitioner. The trial court has followed an extremely insensitive
approach and has lost sight of the fact that petitioner has claimed
that she has no independent source of livelihood and has to bring
up her minor daughter. No doubt he, who seeks equity, must do
equity and the courts may ordinarily refuse to grant relief to a
person whose conduct in regard to the subject matter of the
litigation has been improper.
12. The order passed by learned trial court dated 17.12.2008 no
doubt states that two addresses have been given by the petitioner
but nowhere in the order has the Court discussed as to what is the
CM(M)NO.222/2010 Page 4 of 5
effect and implication of the petitioner having given two
addresses in the petition.
13. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by learned trial
court is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the concerned
Court for fresh hearing in the matter. Trial court will hear the
application for interim maintenance at the first instance. Parties
shall appear before the concerned Court on 1.12.2010, the date
already fixed in the matter. It is made clear that any observation
made by this court while deciding this petition is not an
impression on the merits of the matter and the trial court shall
decide the matter in accordance with law.
14. With these directions petition is allowed in above terms.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
November 10, 2010
'msr'
