Delhi High Court
Smt. Ritu Singal & Ors. vs Ojaswi Singal on 18 August, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th AUGUST, 2015
+ CRL.R.P.357/2014
SMT. RITU SINGAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate
along with petitioner in person.
versus
OJASWI SINGAL ..... Respondent
Through : Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 31.03.2014
whereby interim maintenance @ ` 4,000/- in all was granted to them in
the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Revision petition is contested
by the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the
respondent opted to address arguments in person.
2. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner No.1
averred the total income of the respondent from all sources to be about
`4,00,000/- per month. The respondent while denying it stated that as per
the Income Tax Returns filed by him, the income was not more than
`10,000/- per month.
3. Admitted position is that the respondent is a qualified
Chartered Accountant and is enrolled with ICAI. In the written statement
he was evasive to disclose his specific income. In additional affidavit
dated 11.02.2013, he disclosed that he was one of the partners in
M/s.P.Chopra and Company, Hisar and was doing his professional work
under the name of the aforesaid firm at Hisar. As per Income Tax Return
for the assessment year 2012 - 2013, his professional income was `
1,14,135/- per annum. The income reflected by the respondent in the
Income Tax Returns cannot be taken on its face value. Strange enough,
the income has decreased continuously when in 2010 / 2011 in the Income
Tax Returns for the assessment year 2010 - 2011, the total income
reflected was ` 1,52,934/-. The respondent has not given any valid
reasons for decrease in income. It has come on record that the respondent
has income from profession; income from M/s.P.Chopra and Company;
income from other sources i.e. interest, salary, dividend income, etc. As
per the Expenditure Account for the year ending on 31.03.2012 of M/s.
P.Chopra and Company, Hisar, the total income has been shown to be `
92,245/-. However, exorbitant expenses are shown to have been incurred.
It is not expected that an individual having four bank accounts in different
banks would earn only ` 10,000/- per month. The respondent has all the
facilities available in his office and he deals in trading of shares as well.
He has shown ` 30,000/- as interest received from one Dr.Hukum Chand
Popli in the Income Tax Returns for the year 2011 - 2012.
4. The petitioner No.1 has emphatically denied to be earning
any income. Income Tax Return in her name, no doubt reflects her income
to the tune of ` 1,58,957/- for the assessment year 2011 - 2012. Petitioner
No.1's case is that the Income Tax Return in her name was filed by the
respondent to avoid income tax. It seems so, as no document has come on
record to show as to from where the petitioner No.1 used to generate
income. It appears that the respondent has attempted to divert his income
in her name to suppress his real income.
5. Meager amount of ` 4,000/- in all granted by the Trial Court
is highly inadequate. Admittedly, the petitioner No.2 is a school going
child and has to incur various expenses including tuition fee and other
charges.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, income
of the respondent; status of the parties; their standard of living;
requirements of the petitioner No.1 and her two children, in my view,
interim maintenance ` 7,000/- for petitioner No.1, ` 2,000/- for petitioner
No.2 and ` 1,000/- for petitioner No.3 would meet ends of justice at this
stage.
7. Accordingly, impugned order is modified to the extent that
the interim maintenance shall be ` 10,000/- per month in all as discussed
above. Other terms and conditions of the impugned order are left
undisturbed. The enhancement is applicable from the date of the
impugned order i.e. 31.03.2014.
8. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of
the case.
9. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
10. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 18, 2015 / tr
