Jasmeet Kaur Talwar And Anr. vs Gurjit Singh Talwar
2014 Latest Caselaw 6191 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Pronounced on: 26th November, 2014

+       I.P.A. NO. 67/ 2013

        JASMEET KAUR TALWAR AND ANR.                                      ..... Petitioners

                                           Through:      Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate
                                                         and Ms. Anupama, Advocate.
                                                versus

        GURJIT SINGH TALWAR                                             ..... Respondent

                                           Through:      Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior
                                                         Advocate with Mr. Vishal
                                                         Singh, Advocate and Ms. Jyoti
                                                         Kataria, Advocate.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

I.A. No. 11050/ 2014 (u/s. 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 r/w Section 151 CPC) in I.P.A. No. 67/ 2013

1. This suit (in the form of a Petition as an indigent person) has been

filed by the two Petitioners; Petitioner no. 1 is the wife and Petitioner

no. 2 is the daughter of the Respondent.

2. In the main petition, maintenance on account of Respondent‟s cruelty

and neglect to maintain the Petitioners has been claimed. It is averred

that Petitioner no. 1 was married to the Respondent on 31.10.1982. A

daughter i.e. Petitioner no. 2 and a son were born to Petitioner no. 1

from the loins of the Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioners that

the Respondent had been treating Petitioner no. 1 with cruelty ever

since the inception of marriage. In the year 2011, the cruelty inflicted

upon Petitioner no. 1 escalated to such an extent that she had to leave

her matrimonial home at Sainik Farm and start living with her brother.

Similarly, the Respondent and his son are also not on talking terms

with each other because of the cruelty bestowed upon the said son.

The son along with his wife are also living separately from the

Petitioners and the Respondent.

3. It is averred that Petitioner no. 2 returned to Delhi after completing her

studies in Bangalore in the year 2013. The Respondent perpetuated

physical violence upon her and she too had to leave her father‟s house

and stay with Petitioner no. 1 at the house of Petitioner no.1‟s brother.

4. While the inquiry whether the Petitioners are entitled to sue as

indigent persons or not is pending before the Court, the instant

application has been moved by Petitioner no. 2 claiming a sum of ₹

66,25,000/- for meeting the expenditure on her wedding i.e. for sagan,

mehendi, wedding, gifts, etc. etc. It has been averred in the application

that Petitioner no. 2 got engaged to one Dashmesh Aulakh and rokka

ceremony was held on 13.04.2014. Petitioner no. 1 had to borrow

money from her family members and friends for the said ceremony

and also for making advance payments towards functions like Anand

Karaj, Sagan, etc. It has been stated that mehendi, sagan and wedding

are scheduled to be held on 25th, 26th and 27th of December, 2014

respectively.

5. According to the averments made by the Petitioners, the Respondent

possesses 5 cars which are Mercedes Benz E-250, BMW 3 Series,

Toyota Fortuner, Hyundai Verna and Hyundai I10. He also owns a

bungalow in Sainik Farm admeasuring 1100 sq. yards which has all

the modern facilities, landscaped lawns, servants, garages etc. Further,

Respondent‟s family owns a property opposite Filmistan Theatre and

also a flat on ground floor at GK-II, New Delhi. The Respondent has

also purchased shops at Masjid Moth; he owns a godown in

Tuglakabad and is fetching rent from the said shops and godown. It is

urged that the Respondent has also purchased a 3 acre farmhouse at

Uppal Farms at Bilaspur on Jaipur Highway. The Respondent had

been carrying on business in the name and style of Gujarat Tent

Services, Gujarat Samiana, Tulip Caterers, Select Tours and Talsoft

Information Technology. The Respondent has also opened a Mughlai

Restaurant in the name and style of Shan-e-Delhi and has hired a chef

from Taj Mansingh Hotel to run the same. The Respondent is alleged

to have initially started a five star resort in the name and style of „DE

VIVENDI‟ resort at Manali with only 15 rooms. However, now the

said resort has flourished and has more than 40 rooms alongwith

Discothèque, Conference Room, 2 gymnasium, gardens and 4-5 rooms

even have the facility of Jacuzzi.

6. To show the means of the Respondent, the Petitioners have further

averred that the Respondent has given an interest free unsecured loan

of about ₹ 2.5 crores to his friends and relatives. The Respondent is a

man of sufficient means and that is why he spent sum of about ₹ 10

lacs on a family trip to Turkey which included the Petitioners and the

Respondent. The Respondent also incurred expenditure of around

1500 Euros for Petitioner no. 2‟s educational trip to France. The

details of bifurcation of the amount of ₹ 66,00,000/- as claimed in the

application are given in a tabulated form hereunder:-

Sagan - 400 guests to be accommodated at Indian ₹ 5 lacs Habitat centre and Gurudwara and Payments for catering.

Plaintiff no. 2 also has to buy clothes and ₹ 4 lacs household items for marriage

Gifts to be given to groom side and his relatives ₹ 12 lacs

Mehendi ₹ 3 lacs

Wedding ceremony including catering, decorations ₹ 12 lacs and other expenses

Jewellery ₹ 30 lacs

Total ₹ 66 lacs

7. The Respondent has contested the application by way of filing a

written reply.

8. At the outset, it may be noted that the learned senior counsel for the

Respondent in the very beginning made a statement at the Bar that the

Respondent is not shirking his responsibility to perform Petitioner no.

2‟s wedding and is ready to incur reasonable expenditure therefor.

The learned counsel for the Respondent had offered a sum of ₹ 5 lacs

to meet the expenditure of wedding and had also offered catering

facilities on various functions from his own company.

9. Respondent, however, has denied his means as have been claimed by

the Petitioners. It is stated that no cruelty was ever inflicted upon the

Petitioners by the Respondent. It is urged that the averments made by

the Petitioners are defamatory and that the claim of an amount of over

₹ 66 lakhs to perform Petitioner no. 2‟s marriage is exaggerated and

exorbitant.

10. It is urged that in order to claim maintenance under Section 20 of the

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the Act of 1956), the

Petitioners‟ conduct is a relevant factor. The conduct of the Petitioners

herein had been demeaning, reprehensible and disrespectful to the

Respondent and his elders. The Respondent was never informed about

Petitioner no. 2‟s rokka ceremony. Even the old and infirm

grandparents of Petitioner no. 2 (Respondent‟s parents) who stay in

Delhi were not invited to the rokka ceremony and Respondent‟s

opinion/ approval about the boy was not sought.

11. It is case of the Respondent that the Petitioners are staying at

Petitioner no. 1‟s parental house. They have left the Respondent‟s

home on their own and have themselves got enough means to spend

the amount claimed on marriage. It is stated that the business of Tulip

Caterers and Shan-e-Delhi has been closed more than 15 years back.

The assets and living style of the Respondent is also stated to have

been exaggerated.

12. In the rejoinder, the Petitioners have reiterated the averments made in

the petition and have denied those made in the reply. It is urged that

the Respondent has pledged 1 kg. of gold amounting to about ₹ 30 lacs

with ICICI Bank to avail credit facility. It is further stated that the

income tax returns and bank accounts of the Respondent placed on

record reveal that the Respondent has been paying monthly EMIs of

over ₹ 8 lacs. Only a person of high income can pay such monthly

instalments towards discharge of loan or otherwise.

13. It is also stated that the jewellery of Petitioner no. 1 is in possession of

the Respondent, so new jewellery is required to be made for Petitioner

no. 2.

14. The definition of "Maintenance" as given under Section 3 of the Act

of 1956 is a very wide. Section 3 (b) of the Act of 1956 is extracted

hereunder:-

"(b) "Maintenance" includes-

(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment;

(ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable expenses of an incident to her marriage."

15. Thus, it goes without saying and this has not even been disputed by

the learned senior counsel for the Respondent that maintenance

includes reasonable expenses on the marriage of an unmarried

daughter.

16. Now, the question for consideration before me is what is „reasonable‟.

17. In pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 19.02.2014, Petitioner

no. 1 filed an Affidavit of her income and assets consisting of

moveable and immoveable properties and liabilities and expenditure.

The Respondent also filed an Affidavit of his assets and liabilities,

although it was not given in the exact format as had been given by

Petitioner no. 1. In para 10 of the Affidavit, the Respondent has given

a list of various immoveable properties owned by him or his family

members. In para 12, it has been admitted by the Respondent that he

owns a Hyundai Verna Car, one BMW 3 Series make year 2012 and

one Maximo Van, Mahindra. He has admitted that the resort at Manali

is owned by M/s Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The resort has 43 rooms

but without any star rating. It is also admitted by the Respondent that

he has 13,50,000 shares of this company and is thus, a major share

holder in the same.

18. The Petitioners have placed on record some photographs of the

Respondent‟s residence in Sainik Farm. Apart from the vehicles as

admitted by the Respondent, a Toyota Fortuner and Mercedes Benz E-

250 are also parked in the garage of the house. It is pointed out by the

learned counsel for the Respondent that the Toyota Fortuner was being

used only for the purpose of business and was owned by the company.

Photocopies of the resort at Manali and of some of the rooms and the

facilities available therein have also been placed on record by the

Petitioners. A screen shot from the internet titled „Luxury Resort for

People with Style‟ has also been placed on record. The genuineness of

the photocopies of the bungalow at Sainik Farm, photocopies of the

resort and the screen shot from the link to „De Vivendi Resorts‟,

Manali have not been disputed or controverted by the Respondent.

Hence, it goes without saying that the Respondent is a man of means.

He is also holding 13,50,000 shares in Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

therefore, he has got the means and capacity to make reasonable

expenditure on the marriage of his daughter, Petitioner no. 2.

19. But now the question arises, what are the reasonable expenses in a

marriage and to what extent can a wife or for that matter, a daughter

force her husband/ father to meet the expenditure on the marriage of

the daughter. It may be noted that affluent people do spend huge

amounts of money on building houses and solemnising weddings in

the family. If the Respondent can own a bungalow in Sainik Farm,

have a major stake in Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which owns the

earlier said resort and has various other properties, he has the capacity

and can spend a good amount on his daughter‟s wedding as well. The

Petitioners have given various claims which total up just above ₹ 66

lacs.

20. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the Dowry Act)

prohibits giving or taking of dowry whereas Section 2 defines „dowry‟

as any property or valuable security given by or agreed to be given

either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to other party to

the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage in

connection with marriage of the said parties. Section 4 of the Dowry

Act provides for penalty for demanding dowry. Certain exceptions

have been made with regard to voluntary gifts given by the parents to

the bride or any person related to the bride. Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Act are extracted hereunder:-

"3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-

(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to or, in relation to,-

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in list maintained in accordance with rule made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.-

If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a

sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."

21. Thus, it may be noted that the presents given by the parents of the

bride at the time of her marriage without any demand having been

made in this behalf is permissible, provided that such presents are

entered in a list maintained in accordance with the provisions of the

Act and the presents are of customary nature and the value thereof is

not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by

whom or on whose behalf such presents are being given.

22. Therefore, it can very well be said that the presents which may be

given by Petitioner no. 1 on her behalf as well as on behalf of the

Respondent will not amount to dowry if they are of customary nature

and their value is not excessive vis-a-vis the financial status of the

parties. But if the gifts are excessive, then even if voluntarily given,

they may amount to dowry.

23. The term "reasonable expenditure" as mentioned in Section 20 (3) of

the Dowry Act has not been defined in the Act. As per the Shorter

Oxford English Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2003, the word "reasonable"

means rational; in accordance with reason, not irrational or absurd;

proportionate; and not greatly less or more than might be thought

likely as appropriate.

24. Similarly, as per Roget‟s Thesaurus, 2004 Edition, the word

"reasonable" has been defined to mean moderate, not extreme;

plausible, well grounded, well founded; wise and just.

25. Hence, it can safely be said that "reasonable expenditure" in the

context of the expenditure on marriage of an unmarried daughter will

mean that it is fair and not too high. However, it will be difficult to

calculate reasonable expenditure by precise mathematical calculations.

The Court will have to reach to a sum primarily considering the

financial status of the parties. For that purpose, the Court also has to

make some guess work.

26. I have already observed above that the Respondent maintains luxury

cars and is a major shareholder in Talwar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. which

runs a luxurious resort in Manali. This fact has not even been disputed

by the Respondent. It is also evident from the record that the

Respondent has pledged about 1 kg. of gold. to avail credit facility. It

can also be presumed that the credit facility must have been obtained

by the Respondent in connection with his business.

27. The Petitioners have prayed for a sum of more than ₹ 5 lacs for

serving 400 guests at Indian Habitat Centre which to my mind cannot

be said to be excessive. Similarly, with the sky rocketing prices of the

wedding clothes of a bride and other household items, provision of ₹ 4

lacs for the same made by the Petitioners cannot be said to be

excessive. At the same time, referring to the definition of „dowry‟,

giving of gifts of an amount of ₹ 12 lacs by an unwilling father, even

if Petitioner no. 1, the mother is willing, cannot be said to be

reasonable. As against the prayer to award a sum of ₹ 12 lacs towards

these gifts, it will be appropriate to limit the same to ₹ 4 lacs.

28. Further, it goes without saying that mehendi ceremony is one of the

most essential part of an Indian wedding in recent times where all

friends and near relations from both sides (bride and groom) come

together. Expenditure of ₹ 3 lacs on this however, seems to be a little

on the higher side. It will be appropriate to restrict the same to ₹ 2

lacs.

29. The Petitioners have stated that there would be an expenditure of ₹ 12

lacs on catering, decoration and other expenses at the time of the

wedding. This sum also appears to be just and reasonable. Of course,

gold which has been pledged by the Respondent with ICICI Bank may

be worth about ₹ 30 lacs, but it will be quite excessive to expect a

father to gift jewellery worth ₹ 30 lacs at his daughter‟s wedding.

Again, it will be reasonable to restrict the demand for purchase of

jewellery to ₹ 10 lacs. The total amount claimed and held to be

reasonable by this Court is thus, extracted hereunder in a tabulated

form:-

          Sl.                          Category            Amount Amount
                                                           Claimed Awarded
         No.
                                                             (₹ in            (₹ in
                                                             lacs)            lacs)

         1.      Sagan - 400 guests to be accommodated      5.0          5.0
                 at Indian Habitat Centre and Gurudwara
                 and Payments for catering.

         2.      Petitioner no. 2 also has to buy clothes 4.0            4.0
                 and household items for marriage

         3.      Gifts to be given to groom‟s side and his 12.0          4.0
                 relatives

         4.      Mehendi                                   3.0           2.0

         5.      Wedding ceremony including catering, 12.0               12.0
                 decorations and other expenses

         6.      Jewellery                                 30.0          10.0

                 Total                                     66.0          37.0

30. Although, it is very difficult to say as to what would be the reasonable

expenditure on the marriage of a daughter, but in case of a father who

may have means and in the circumstances of this case, the reasonable

expenditure of marriage would approximately be ₹37 lacs.

31. The Respondent is directed to pay the amount of ₹37 lacs to Petitioner

no. 1 by virtue of a pay order or to deposit the same with the Registrar

General of this Court by 02.12.2014.

32. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

I.P.A. No. 67/ 2013

Renotify on 22.01.2015.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

NOVEMBER 26, 2014 vk