Vikas Harjai vs Chetna Harjai
2012 Latest Caselaw 4064 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Decision: 11.07.2012
+     CM(M) 59/2012

VIKAS HARJAI                                                 ..... Petitioner
                             Through :   Mr. Pradeep Chandel, Adv. alongwith
                                         petitioner in person

                    versus

CHETNA HARJAI                                               ..... Respondent

Through : None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL)

1. By way of this petition, petitioner/husband has challenged impugned

order dated 29.08.2011 by which the learned trial court has disposed of two

applications, both under section 24 of HMA, one filed by respondent/wife

against the petitioner/husband for grant of interim maintenance to her as well

as for the child and other filed by the petitioner/husband against the

respondent/wife for grant of interim maintenance to him.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner/husband has submitted that the

respondent/wife is employed as a Scientist with the Department of

Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi having net salary of Rs. 27,000/-

per month. She is gainfully employed and as such is not entitled for

maintenance pendente lite in the divorce petition filed by him against the

respondent/wife. It is submitted that earning of respondent/wife are

sufficient for her maintenance as well as that of the minor child who is 6

years of age. It is further submitted that petitioner/husband is not

employed. He is unable to work due to the complaints by the

respondent/wife and in these circumstances no order of interim maintenance

could have been passed in favour of respondent/wife. It is further stated that

rather the wife is earning sufficient amount and the interim maintenance

ought to have been awarded to him.

3. Before the learned trial court, petitioner/husband has taken a stand that

he is working as a temporary employee with a Private Ltd. Company and has

alleged that his movements have been crippled due to filing of complaints by

the wife. On the other hand, respondent/wife has alleged that

petitioner/husband is employed with NIIT Technologies on a package of

Rs.80,000/- per month along with other incentives. Respondent/wife has

also alleged that he owns a car also.

4. The petitioner/husband has not disclosed his income before the

learned trial court. The observation of the learned trial court in this regard is

as under:-

"9. It is admitted by the husband that he is working as a temporary employee with a Private Ltd. Company, but his movements have been crippled due to filing of criminal case by the applicant/wife.

10. The husband for the reasons best known to him has shirked himself in not disclosing his real income, though in Para 10 of his petition he has categorically mentioned that "the petitioner is a confirmed employee with a very reputed organization in IT Industry."

5. As regards the allegations of respondent/wife that petitioner/husband

also owns a car, the learned trial court has noted that there is denial by

petitioner/husband of owning a car with a particular registration number,

accordingly the ld trial court has drawn the inference that he owns a car

having a different registration number. The ld trial court has taken the

income of husband around Rs. 60,000/- per month. The net income of

respondent/wife is taken as Rs.27000/- per month. By the impugned order,

interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month is awarded to respondent/wife

and Rs.3000/- is awarded to child.

6. The stand taken by the petitioner/husband before this court is that he

had lost his job as his wife approached his office several times and made

complaints against him, as such no maintenance can be awarded to

respondent/wife. However, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the

same. On 17.01.2012, petitioner was directed to place on record the salary

certificate of the company where he was working as is stated by him in Para

10 of the divorce petition. Even that salary certificate was not placed on

record. He was also asked to file a detailed affidavit as to whether he had

left the job of his own or was terminated for some reason. Thereafter,

petitioner has placed on record a copy of the e-mail dated 29.10.2009 alleged

to have been sent by him to his employer requesting for relieving him from

services from 01.03.2010. Nothing is placed on record as to whether the

alleged resignation has been accepted or not. There is no further

correspondence placed on record. The ld trial court has passed the impugned

order on 29.08.2011. The aforesaid e-mail was not placed on record before

the ld trial court. No reason is stated as to why the same was not filed

before the ld trial court. The same is filed for the first time on 04.07.2012.

It is not even certified as a true copy. No reliance can be placed on aforesaid

document.

7. Further the stand taken is that at the time of filing of divorce petition,

the petitioner/husband was working with a reputed organization in IT

Industry. Thereafter, he had to change the job due to alleged false

complaints of respondent against him to his employer. Not even a single

complaint is filed to substantiate his stand. No material is placed on record

by which petitioner can substantiate the stand taken by him. Even the name

of previous employer, salary drawn by him has not been stated. The

petitioner/husband has deliberately concealed his income to avoid the

liability of maintaining his wife and the child.

8. It may be noticed that vide impugned order, only interim maintenance

@ Rs. 2,000/- per month is awarded to respondent/wife and Rs. 3,000/- is

awarded to the child. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for

petitioner has submitted that petitioner has no objection in giving

maintenance to the child but wife/wife ought not have been awarded interim

maintenance as she is earning sufficient income.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances including the fact

that husband has deliberately concealed his income and has not approached

the court with clean hands, no illegality is seen in the impugned order which

needs interference of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition stands dismissed.

CM No. 939/2012 (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 JULY 11, 2012 kks