Delhi High Court
Rajiv Chaudhary vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 09, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.No.488/2015
RAJIV CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Katyan, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.No.1922/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C.No.468/2015 & Crl.M.A.No.1921/2015
In proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, trial court by its order of 2nd June, 2014 has directed petitioner-
husband to pay maintenance @ `12,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of
the petition. Vide impugned order of 28th November, 2014 Appellate
Court has affirmed the aforesaid trial court's order. Both the courts
below have assessed petitioner's income to be between `35,000 and
`40,000/- per month.
At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner
Crl.M.C.No.488/2015 Page 1
that petitioner is a driver by profession and is earning `3,000-4,000/- per
month and is unable to pay the maintenance awarded. It is submitted that
respondent is a qualified lady and is deliberately sitting idle and prior to
filing of this case, she was working. Attention of this Court was drawn to
bank account statement of respondent and to the three debit cards
(Annexure P-8 colly) and it was submitted that courts below are not
justified in granting the maintenance amount to respondent.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and material
on record, I find that bank account statement of respondent is for the
period prior to filing of the application in question, and it does not
disclose any steady deposits in the account. As regards debit cards are
concerned, there is no reference in the impugned orders and even in this
petition, it is not stated that petitioner had urged before the Appellate
Court that the debit cards are of respondent. A bare perusal of copy of
debit cards (Annexure P-8 colly) reveals that on the face of it, these debit
cards do not appear to be of respondent. In any case, this is a question
which is left open to be considered by the trial court in the pending
proceedings.
In the impugned order, it has been rightly observed that no one
would give Hyundai Accent car to the bridegroom, who is a driver by
profession and is earning `3,000-4000/- per month. The factum of
petitioner owning Hyundai Accent car and of maintaining it shows that
petitioner is concealing his true income. Bank Account Statement of
petitioner reveals that there are deposits of various sizeable amounts in
his account, for which no explanation is forthcoming.
Crl.M.C.No.488/2015 Page 2
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order.
The petition and application are dismissed without commenting
upon merits of this case, lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.488/2015 Page 3
