Delhi High Court
Sandeep Garg vs Monika Garg on 8 February, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 111/2015 & CM No.16608/2015
% Date of decision : 8th February, 2016
SANDEEP GARG ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Adv.
versus
MONIKA GARG ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, J
1. By the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the order
dated 5th August, 2011 whereby the Family Court accepted the
application of the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-
to the respondent-wife and her daughter. The appellant also assails
the order dated 1st April, 2015 whereby the Family Court has
rejected the review application dated 21st March, 2012 filed by the
husband seeking review of the order dated 5th August, 2011.
2. The order dated 5th August, 2011 has inter alia concluded
that the petitioner-husband was cohabiting with his family and the
family had well established business with two big show rooms at
Kundli under the name and style of M/s Balaji Hardware and
Millstore as well as M/s Aggarwal Electronics. The learned
Family Court Judge has accepted the respondent's assertion that
with the intent to avoid payment of maintenance, though the
appellant-husband was running the business of M/s Balaji
Hardware as a sole proprietor, he has surreptitiously got the
proprietorship firm converted into a partnership firm with his
brother in the Sales Tax Department. The learned Judge has also
accepted that the business is well established and has relied on the
documentary evidence that the annual income of the firm for the
year 2010-2011 was approximately Rs.2.4 crores. The order dated
5th August, 2011 has also considered the allotment letter dated 13th
November, 2006 issued by the Haryana Urban Development
Authority re-allotting Plot No. 727, Sector-7, Sonipat, Gohana,
Haryana in favour of the husband. Apart from the other facts and
circumstances, this documentary evidence has persuaded the court
to reject the appellant's claim that he was working at a monthly
salary of Rs.15,000/- under his brother in the firm of which he
himself had been the sole proprietor.
3. The review order dated 1st April, 2015 notes that despite
repeated directions, the appellant-husband did not file the affidavit
of income, assets and liabilities though the respondent had filed the
same. Last opportunity to do so was granted on 29 th July, 2013.
We may note that though the statutory period of limitation for
filing a review is only 30 days, the appellant sought review of the
order dated 15th August, 2011 by a petition filed on 21st March,
2012 obviously to avoid payment of the maintenance granted.
4. The record of the instant case also reflects a blatant attempt
of the appellant to avoid payment of maintenance to the
respondent-wife and the daughter of the parties who are completely
without any resources.
5. On 21st December, 2015, this court had prima facie noted
that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court.
The appellant is unable to assail the findings in the impugned
orders or to persuade us also to hold to the contrary.
We find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.
The appellant shall ensure strict compliance with the orders
passed by the Family Court.
CM No.16608/2015
In view of the orders in the appeal, this application does not
survive for adjudication and is disposed of as such.
GITA MITTAL, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2016
kr
