Kripa Narayan vs Mamta Pathak
2016 Latest Caselaw 5563 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    +    CRL.REVISION No.680/2015

                                             Date of Decision: August 26, 2016

         KRIPA NARAYAN                                             ..... Petitioner

                          Through            Mr.Amit Wadhwa and
                                             Mr.Jaspal Singh Gujral, Advs.

                          versus

         MAMTA PATHAK                                           ...... Respondents
                          Through            Mr.O.P.Saxena and Mr.Sanjay Verma,
                                             Advs.


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

         P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under

Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated

17.09.2015 passed by the Principal Family Judge, Patiala

House Court, New Delhi.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that a petition

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent/wife

against the petitioner husband being M.No.32/2013 stating

there that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on

28.11.1994 at Meerut as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One

female child namely baby Meetali was born out of the wedlock

on 22.02.1998.

3. It was stated in the petition by the respondent that she is

a well qualified lady having a good status due to her long

experience in life. That the petitioner is a businessman having

income in Lakhs, purchased properties and having good

reputation maintaining a First Class living standard. It was also

stated that the petitioner currently owns and maintains luxury

cars. It was also submitted that the petitioner/husband has

earned name and fame due to very hard work and effort and he

had purchased all the properties in his name except one

property which was in the joint name of the parties. She stated

that her in-laws assaulted her and inflicted all types of cruelties

upon her, both mental and physical. It was also alleged that in

2003 she was thrown out of the matrimonial home whereafter

she took a rented accommoation in Delhi, started living there

with her daughter and also got her daughter admitted to a

school. She further stated that as per available sources, the

petitioner was doing business and running his two factories in

Meerut and earning approximately Rs.5,00,000/- per month

and was owning and maintaining two luxury cars and one

Gypsy. It was also stated that the petitioner is wilfully

neglecting to maintain the respondents.

4. The petition was contested by the petitioner/husband by

filing a written statement and reply to the interim maintenance

application. It was submitted that the respondent/wife is

working in a multi-national company and earning around Rs.7

lakhs per annum in comparison to the petitioner/husband who

is earning 1/4th of the same being Rs.2,03,990/- in the

assessment year 2010-2011, Rs.2,21,890/- in the assessment

year 2011-12 and Rs.2,28,070/- in the assessment year 2012-

2013. The petitioner/husband also submitted that after his

monthly expenses, he is hardly able to save any amount for his

daughter's future as he is spending Rs.8,000/- towards school

fees, tuition fees and other expenses of the child apart from

other miscellaneous expenses.

5. The Trial Court while disposing of the petition dealt

with each condition as stipulated under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

separately and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is a

legally wedded wife of the petitioner; that as for the allegations

levelled by the respondent with respect to harassment and

cruelty meted out to her, the same can be adjudicated only

after trial; that as for the refusal/neglect on the part of the

petitioner to maintain his wife, it was obligatory on the

petitioner to discharge that onus; that as for the income of the

respondent, it was observed that she had filed an affidavit that

she is a B.Ed, has done MBA from Symbiosis in 2013, is

unemployed, has no independent source of income and is

dependent upon her father for maintaining herself and the

minor child; that with respect to the expenditure being incurred

by the respondent/wife, it was observed that in her affidavit

she had stated that she spends Rs.10,000/- per month towards

rent, Rs.8,100/- towards household expenses apart form other

miscellaneous expenses including a sum of Rs.1,07,900/- per

hearing on litigation expenses; that as for the income of the

petitioner/husband, it was observed that he had filed an

affidavit to the effect that he is a graduate in commerce, is self-

employed in manufacturing unit (Micro Unit) namely M/s

Viraat Rubber Industries, Meerut since 1990 where he is

having six employees, he owns one Maruti Gypsy, one TVS

Fiero, one Honda Eterno and one Maruti Swift apart from

other electronic appliances. As per his profit and loss

statement, his net profit is shown as Rs.3,33,789/- till

31.03.2014. He had purchased four plots as detailed in the

affidavit where in two plots, he had 50% ownership; that as for

the expenditure of the husband, it was observed that as per his

affidavit, he spends Rs.28,000/- towards his expenditure out of

which Rs.10,000/- is appropriated towards education of the

child, Rs.11,004/- per month towards instalment of house loan

apart from other miscellaneous expenses; he is stated to have

invested in six insurance policies; there were two current

accounts and one savings bank account in Allahabad Bank

where he deposited Rs. 1 lakh on 21.03.2013, Rs.1,25,000/- on

19.03.2013 and Rs.1,25,000/- on 02.05.2013. He also filed

copies of his ITRs. For the Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14

and 2014-15, his total income was Rs.3,21,942/-, Rs.3,37,108/-

and Rs.3,72,059/- respectively.

6. After analysis of income and expenditure of both the

parties, the Trial Court observed that the marriage between the

parties is an admitted fact; allegations of petitioner/husband

that the respondent/wife deserted him without informing him

or his parents; mutual recriminations, showing self-

justification and holding other side responsible for marital

discord raise triable issues and, therefore, cannot be looked

into at this stage.

7. As for the means of livelihood of the parties, the Trial

Court observed that the respondent deposed that she is B.Ed

and MBA qualified and unemplyed and is not earning

anything. The petitioner/husband alleged that the

respondent/wife is not entitled for maintenance as she is a well

qualified lady and maintained herself. The petitioner/husband

placed on record three bank statements which show that he is

earning between Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- approximately.

However, in his affidavit, he deposed that his monthly

expenditure was around Rs.28,000/-. The respondent/husband

also placed on record monthly statements in different bank

accounts where he had deposited between Rs.1,00,000/- to

Rs.1,50,000/- every month. The total income of the

petitioner/husband, after deduction of income tax, for the

assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 was

Rs.2,28,070/-, 2,37,620 and Rs.2,72,060/- respectively.

8. The Trial Court, in the given facts, concluded that the

petitioner/husband who is having six insurance policies, two

current accounts and one savings bank account where entries

are shown to the tune of lakhs, owning cars and plots, is liable

to pay a maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per month from the date

of filing of the application. The petitioner was also directed to

pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent/wife.

The arrears were directed to be cleared in six equal monthly

instalments and the current maintenance was directed to be

paid by 10th of each month till disposal of the petition and to be

credited in account of the respondent/wife.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband in

support of petition has taken the grounds that the Trial Court

has fallen into an error as the affidavits of assets have not been

filed by the respondent in accordance with law; that interim

maintenance awarded by the Trial Court to the tune of

Rs.35,000/- per month is on the higher side; that as per the ITR

filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15 his

income is Rs.3,72,059/- i.e. Rs.31,000/- per month, how can he

pay the maintenance of Rs.35,000/- a month; that the Trial

Court did not consider the payment/withdrawal of the account

which exceeded the receipts and wrongly concluded that the

petitoner is earning Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per month;

that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is

maintaining middleman status and hardly saves anything after

meeting the household expenses, daughter's studies and his

mother's expenses; that the maintenance awarded should aid

the applicant to live in a similar life style as she enjoyed at her

matrimonial home and moreover, in the present case, the

respondent left the matrimonial home at her own will and

whims without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner in

2003; that the moveable assets like bike, scooter or car were

purchased by the petitioner on a hire-purchase basis and were

not purchased in the same year; that the respondent/wife is

well qualified and is maintaining a good status in society and

has knowingly, intentionally with mala fide intentions not

diclosed her employer details, ITR returns, bank account

details for the last three years; that the respondent has refused

to live with the petitioner out of her own will and without any

rhyme or reason and that she is live-in relationship with one

Mr.Sandeep and in order to marry him and stay with him, the

respondent filed mutual divorce petition on 17.07.2007 before

the Principal Family Judge, Meerut, UP and thus the petition

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the

respondent is not entitled to any interim or final maintenance.

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

perused the record.

11. The marriage between the parties is not in dispute. It is

settled law and even the duty of the husband to maintain his

wife. It is expected from a husband to give his wife the same

standard of living which enjoys whether living jointly or

separately. In the present case, it has been shown from the

record that the petitioner was having a handsome income and

maintaining himself well. There were transactions worth lakhs

as per the entries of the accounts maintained by the petitioner.

It was also shown that the petitioner was having cars and

several plots. After considering all the aspects, the Trial Court

rightly came to the conclusion in awarding the maintenance of

Rs.35,000/- in favour of the respondent/wife being interim

maintenance which is subjected to adjustment at the time of

final judgment.

12. In view of above discussion and facts and circumstances,

this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order

17.09.2015 so as to call for intereference by this court as the

order passed by the Trial Court is a well reasoned one, based

on the income and expediture statements brought before the

court by the parties through their affidavits and ITRs.

13. The present revision petition is dismissed with a

direction to the Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the

petition filed by the respondent/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

preferably within a period of six months. The interim

maintenance granted by the Trial Court vide order dated

17.09.2015 shall be subject to adjustment at the time of award

of final maintenance in the petition filed by the

respondent/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE AUGUST 26, 2016 dm/dd