Sh. Shailesh Gupta vs Smt. Renu
2011 Latest Caselaw 6066 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     CM (M) 1431/2011 & CM Nos.22315-16/2011

                       Judgment delivered on: 12th December, 2011

SH. SHAILESH GUPTA                                       ..... Appellant
                            Through:   Mr. Rama Shanker with
                                       Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Advocates.

                       versus


SMT. RENU                                              ..... Respondent
                            Through:   Nemo



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

*

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated

5.10.2011 whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application of

the respondent filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage

Act thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per

month towards the interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 11,000/-

towards litigation expenses to the respondent.

2. Assailing the said order, Mr. Rama Shannker, learned

counsel representing the petitioner submits that except earning an

amount of Rs. 4,000/- from the rental income, the petitioner has no

other source of income. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is

not even Xth standard pass and has no technical knowledge or

experience in any field while on the other hand the respondent is well

educated lady besides having expertise in the field of event

management. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court

has not appreciated the fact that after separation of the parties the

business of event management, which was being jointly run by both

the parties was completely closed down and since then the petitioner

is effectively unemployed. Based on these submissions counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no financial resources to

pay such an exorbitant amount of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the

respondent.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at

considerable length and gone through the records.

4. The learned Trial Court has awarded the maintenance

amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent and

against the petitioner after taking into consideration the status of the

parties, the life style being enjoyed by them in the matrimonial home

and the paying capacity of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court also

took into consideration the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs

spent by the petitioner towards the construction of two floors in the

house besides his admission of having rental income of Rs. 4,000/- to

Rs. 5,000/- per month. The learned Trial Court in the impugned order

also observed that the petitioner has made a concerted effort to

conceal his true income from the Court and in such circumstances

adverse inference has to be drawn against him.

5. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has not truthfully come

forward to disclose his correct income either before this Court or

before the learned Trial Court. From a perusal of the reply filed by

the petitioner to Section 24 application it is clear that nowhere the

petitioner has disclosed as to what was his source of income and how

was he sustaining himself. Even the rental income has not been

disclosed by the petitioner in the reply. In para 7 of the application

filed by the respondent, she has alleged that the petitioner is man of

means and high status and is earning Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- per

month out of which Rs. 36,000/- is rental income earned by letting

out the premises bearing No. 373, Chandiwali Street, Paharganj. The

respondent in her application has further alleged that the petitioner is

earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing a job in Focus television as

car driver and around Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing the business of

event management. Except the bald denial of the said averments in

reply to para 7, the petitioner nowhere in his entire reply has

disclosed his source of income. The respondent even has falsely

stated in reply to para 7 of the said application that he has no rental

income. Undeniably, it is a fact that the wives in their interim

maintenance application come forward with inflated and exaggerated

income figures of their husbands, but in the absence of any convincing

proof furnished by the wives, no reliance can be placed by the Court

on such inflated figures. Nevertheless it is for the earning spouse to

satisfy the Court with regard to his correct income through his

truthful disclosures and with the help of some documentary evidence

wherever possible. In most of such cases to evade their liability from

paying the legitimate amount of maintenance to their wives, the

husbands more often than not do not disclose their true and correct

income. The Courts have consistently taken a view that in all such

cases, the only option left is to undertake some guess work looking

into all other factors to ascertain the income of the husband. In the

facts of the present case also the appellant has brazenly suppressed

his correct income from the Court and even has suppressed his rental

income in his reply filed by him to application under Section 24. The

petitioner has not placed on record any material to persuade this

court that he does not have the means to pay the said amount

awarded by the learned trial court to the respondent wife. In such

circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in

the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court directing him

to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the interim maintenance of

his wife, the respondent herein taking into account all the relevant

factors.

6. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the present

petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

KAILASH GAMBHIR,J DECEMBER 12, 2011 rkr