Ishwar Chand Jindal vs Shashi Prabha Jindal
2016 Latest Caselaw 5703 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                                 DECIDED ON 31.08.2016

+      MAT.APP. (F.C.) 8/2013, CM APPL.8769/2013, 238 & 18868/2014

       ISHWAR CHAND JINDAL                          ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. K.C.Mittal with Mr. R.K. Jain, Ms.
                   Ruchika Mittal and Ms. Shikha Khandelwal,
                   Advocates.
                   versus
       SHASHI PRABHA JINDAL                         ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Shashi Prabha Jindal, respondent in person.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA Mr. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT:

1. The present appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is directed against a judgment of the Family Court granting maintenance to the respondent-wife (hereafter "the wife") to the extent of `2 lakhs per month.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant and the respondent were married to each other on 23rd May, 1982; they have three children; the first two are majors and the third, a son, is now a fifteen year old in the care of the wife. The appellant and his wife jointly started a business, in steel production. The appellant was engaged in production in view of his technical qualifications and expertise and the wife, in sales, delivery collection etc. The business appears to have vastly prospered so much so that it has transformed into the Magnum steels group. The family however suffered a set back, when the

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013 Page 1 appellant and his wife developed differences; he moved out from the family home. The wife alleged that he had developed a relationship with another woman. The husband alleged that the wife misappropriated bonds, securities and other such properties. He instituted proceedings for judicial separation, apart from actually moving out of the family home. During pendency of these proceedings, the wife moved an application seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This application was allowed by the impugned order. In the meanwhile, the petition for judicial separation was dismissed for non-prosecution, in March, 2009. The Family Court's order directed the appellant to pay `2 lakhs per month- effectively it operated for 17 months. Besides, the appellant was also directed to pay `50,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. It is urged by the appellant and argued by his counsel Mr. K.C. Mittal that the Family Court fell into error in granting maintenance for any period since the main proceedings, i.e., the petition for judicial separation was dismissed. Learned counsel highlighted that the wife had independent and adequate means for sustaining herself; besides she lives in a house on a plot of 500 Sq.Yds, i.e., 15, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. It is urged that the wife is also in possession of jewelry valued at substantial amounts and that at the relevant time was carrying on business in two concerns, i.e., RWA Cables and WTA Ltd. Besides argued counsel the wife was a Director/Shareholder in 7 companies. Learned counsel urged that the record shows that the wife had withdrawn `15 lakhs from the account of Magnum Steels; likewise the statement of account for the 6 months period between 1.4.2006 and 31.12.2006 showed that `55 lakhs were credited to the account. It is submitted that the appellant had provided `50 lakhs to his wife in the year 2000 to carry on her business.

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013 Page 2

4. Learned counsel sought to urge that the wife was trustee or beneficiary in five different entities and accounts each of which had substantial amounts. Far from being indigent or unable to support herself, she was living in considerable comfort and under no circumstance could it be said that she deserves any maintenance amounts much less the sum of `2 lakhs. It was submitted by Mr. Mittal that by overemphasizing the issue of status on the one hand and completely overlooking the question of need or requirement, the Family Court fell into error of law.

5. Ms. Shashi Prabha Jindal who appeared and represented herself resisted the submissions of the appellant and relied upon the decision of this Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, AIR 2007 Delhi 197 where the Court had highlighted that various factors should be taken into account such as status of the parties, reasonable wants of the claimant, the independent income and property of the claimant, the number of persons the non- applicant has to maintain, that the amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, non- applicant's liabilities, provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education etc., paying capacity of the non-applicant etc. It was highlighted that the appellant is a prosperous businessman and in control of a group of companies with an annual turnover of over `700 crores. Ms. Jindal relied upon the article "Business Sphere" in September, 2005 which stated that his business had a turnover of `232 Crores. She also relied upon the extract from the impugned order that had listed the value of properties of her husband. She further highlighted that in the appellant's reply to the application, admissions were made that he owns 5 properties and had in the course of the search operation declared his income at `51 Crores. Furthermore, he deposited over `58 lakhs in his bank account and had given

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013 Page 3 `57.89 lakhs to M/s B.R. Associates and Magnum International for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.

6. Ms. Jindal submitted that the Demat share account transactions of the appellant for the two months period - February to April, 2006 - were to the extent of `3.41 Crores. The records also revealed that he had purchased shares worth `19.11 Crores on 29.9.2006.

7. The above facts would show that the controversy at hand relates to the correctness of the pendente lite maintenance order for 17 months whereby the Family Court directed payment of `2 lakhs per month. To arrive at the figure of `2 lakhs per month, the Family Court took note of the following facts: -

(i) loan to the extent of `50.90 lakhs given by the appellant to M/s B.R. Associates;

(ii) loan of `41.74 lakhs given by the appellant to Magnum International Ltd.;

(iii) purchase of shares to the extent of `31.90 lakhs in one day, i.e., 16.02.2016 by the husband;

(iv) likewise purchase and sale of shares in excess of `50 lakhs during April, 2006;

(v) purchase of second floor with roof rights built on a 300 Sq.Mtrs. and purchase of an industrial plot (12586 sq. mtr.) at Bhiwadi for `1,72,75,000/- and a further purchase of 1850 sq.ft. flat at Pitam Pura;

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013                                                       Page 4
               (vi)    purchase and transfer of shares to the extent of `19.11
                      Crores on 29.9.2006 by the appellant/husband;

(vii) the appellant pays premium of `3.98 lakhs per annum for his insurance policies.

(ix) ownership of properties by the husband at Gwalior and his Directorship of several companies, i.e., Deluxe Alloys Pvt. Ltd, IRS Industries Pvt. Ltd., B.R. Associates Ltd., Magnum Iron and Steels Ltd. and Magnum International Pvt. Ltd., from which he also derives salary.

8. The decision in Bharat Hegde (supra) rules that while determining whether and if to what extent maintenance pendente lite is to be given the Court has to take into account several factors which include the income or the income earning capacity of the spouse; his or her status; the lifestyle hitherto enjoyed by him or her; the paying capacity and expenses of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought etc. The husband appellant in this case has no doubt leveled several allegations against the wife but most of them are with regard to her alleged forgery and other acts. There is nothing on the record to show that these allegations have credibility. From the record it appears that the appellant was assisted to a considerable degree by his wife over the period that they were together specially after 1987 when his business started. Whether the allegations of the wife that he developed physical intimacies with some other women are true or not, the fact remains that he is now living separately. Equally it is a fact that he agreed to give `96,000/- per month to the wife in a settlement. The limited question, therefore, is whether having regard to the totality of the materials

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013 Page 5 on record, can it be said that the direction to pay `2 lakhs for the limited duration of 17 months is the rationale or unsupported in law.

9. If one objectively applies the several criteria indicated in Bharat Hegde (supra), there can be no doubt that the impugned directions were warranted in the circumstances. As against the appellant's allegations of financial misdeed by the wife and his further averments that she was a Director in 7 companies and that she had withdrawn amounts from the account, the Court has to weigh with the other objective facts such as the wife having to live by herself, maintain a large house besides providing for her daughter who lives with her and sustain the household with several a large staff. The appellant husband has not at any point of time denied that he is possessed of substantial means. The documentary evidence - rather voluminous in nature - shows that he appears to have surrendered in excess of `50 Crores as income in the course of search and seizure operation; equally he appears to have transacted in shares purchases for substantial amounts in 2006-07. He did not deny this; nor did he show material for any period to negate the veracity of the inferences drawn by the Family Court.

10. In considering the correctness of an interim order (as a determination of pendente lite maintenance order under Section 24) undoubtedly the Court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the court of first instance. Only when the approach of the Trial Court is glaringly inconsonant with settled principles of law or inferences prima facie deductions are made with no co- relation to the facts or materials on record, would the appellate court intervene. In the present case, the Family Court has carried out a fairly exhaustive analysis of the factual matrix and taken note of the submissions of both the parties. Having regard to these circumstances and specially in the context of the limited duration for which the maintenance pendente lite

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013 Page 6 order is to operate, the Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for.

11. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) AUGUST 31, 2016

MAT.APP.(FC) 8/2013 Page 7