Yogesh Soni vs Master Devesh Soni & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 9398 Del

$37
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 17, 2015

+      CRL.REV.P. 732/2014 & Crl.M.A.Nos.18522-23/2014


       YOGESH SONI                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through :    Mr.Bajrang Vats, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

    MASTER DEVESH SONI & ORS                  ..... Respondents
                  Through : Mr.Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate,
                            along with Ms.Rakhi Verma,
                            mother of the respondents present
                            in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated

30.09.2014 of Judge, Family Court, Rohini, by which in the proceedings

under Section 127 Cr.P.C., maintenance amount was enhanced from

`4,000/- to `15,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the application

i.e.15.01.2011 till further orders. The revision petition is contested by the

respondents.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. In divorce petition HMA No.97/08, a settlement

was arrived at between the petitioner and respondents' mother whereby

divorce by mutual consent took place between the two. `5,00,000/- was

agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents' mother in respect of

her claims including istridhan, dowry articles and permanent alimony. It

was further agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of `4,000/-

i.e.`2,000/- p.m. for each of the respondents for their maintenance. It was

further agreed that the respondents could apply for enhancement of the

maintenance amount after every two years.

3. Settlement dated 02.09.2007 is not under challenge. As per

that settlement, the petitioner was to pay `2,000/- p.m. each to the

respondents for their maintenance. It was also liable to be enhanced after

every two years. However, the respondents did not file any application

for its enhancement before 15.01.2011. The petitioner on his own did not

deem it fit to enhance the quantum of maintenance. Both the respondents

are school-going children and at present are studying in 7th and 5th

Standard in Monfort School, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and Kulchi Hansraj

Model School, Ashok Vihar respectively. They are aged around 12 and

10 years. The respondents have claimed that the petitioner has income

more than `80,000/- p.m. and is manufacturer and exporter of Kundan

jewellery at Jaipur. The petitioner's contention is that his income does not

exceed `25,000/- p.m. as reflected in the Income Tax returns and he is

carrying a sole proprietorship firm under the name and style of M/s

Y.R.Gems engaged in the brokerage of gems of small scale unit facing

high competition and recession in the market.

4. The quantum of maintenance granted at the rate of `7,500/-

p.m. for each of the respondents after expiry of about four years from the

date of settlement cannot be termed excessive considering that both the

respondents are getting education at public schools and have to incur

substantial expenses for their overall development. The petitioner has not

placed on record cogent documents to show his exact income from

different sources. Mere reliance on the income reflected in the income tax

returns is not an indicator of his exact income. It is well known that many

times correct income is not reflected in the income tax returns to avoid

income tax. The petitioner has not placed on record any books of

accounts of the business being run by him to ascertain as to how the

income generated from such business has been calculated and assessed.

One of the income tax returns even shows an income of `9564/- as

interest from FDR details of which have not been furnished. Moreover,

no such income tax returns were produced before the Trial Court at the

time of disposal of the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

necessities and other requirements of the respondents, the quantum of

maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court cannot be considered

excessive or arbitrary. The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

DECEMBER 17, 2015 sa