Delhi High Court
Neelam Kadyan vs Naveen Dalal on 25 September, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 164/2017, C.M. Nos. 33495-97/2017
NEELAM KADYAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocate.
versus
NAVEEN DALAL ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 25.09.2017
1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the order dated 09.3.2017, passed
by the learned Family Court disposing of her application filed under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'), praying inter alia
for grant of maintenance @ of Rs.60,000/- per month, for herself and the
two minor children.
2. Under the impugned order, the learned Family Court refused to grant
maintenance to the appellant in view of the fact that she is working as an
Assistant Professor (Law) at the Rohtak University and her gross monthly
income is to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. However, two minor children of the
parties, a daughter aged about 16 years and a son aged about 10 years, have
been granted pendente lite maintenance @ Rs.28,000/- per month, payable
from the date of filing of the application, i.e., w.e.f. 03.10.2013. The
respondent/husband has been directed to clear the arrears of maintenance in
six equal monthly instalments, the first instalment payable by 15.4.2017. He
has further been directed to pay the remaining five instalments of
maintenance on or before 15th day of each calendar month, commencing
from June, 2017. The respondent has also directed to pay litigation expenses
of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/wife.
3. We may note that prior to the appellant approaching this Court by
filing the present appeal, aggrieved by the very same order, the
respondent/husband had filed an appeal, registered as MAT. APP. (F.C.)No.
80/2017, which was dismissed by the Division Bench (of which one of us,
Hima Kohli, J. was a member) on 09.5.2017, at the stage of admission, by
rejecting the plea of the counsel for the respondent/husband (appellant
therein) that his client was not financially sound and unable to pay a sum for
Rs.28,000/- per month towards pendente lite maintenance of the children.
4. It was held in the order dated 09.05.2017 that mere reliance on the
bank statement of the husband cannot be considered the sole yardstick for
assessing his income, particularly, since he is a practising Advocate with 20
years of experience at the Bar and it is also not unknown that the entire
professional fee of an advocate is not received through cheque alone.
Depending upon the nature of clientele, there is also some cash element
involved which may not have been deposited by the husband. Further, it was
pointed out that no other evidence has been placed on record which could
substantiate the claim of the husband that while fixing the maintenance of
the children, the learned Family Court had overlooked some material
documents or that the maintenance awarded was excessive or unreasonable
and liable to be scaled down. On the basis of preponderance of probabilities,
learned Family Court had arrived at the figure of @ Rs.14,000/- p.m.
payable as pendente lite maintenance in respect of each child, looking at
their age, stage of education, and family background, etc., which was found
to be reasonable. It was also noted that the wife is also contributing
financially towards rearing the children and the entire burden has not been
shifted on to the shoulders of the husband. As a result, the said appeal was
dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent had filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court, registered as SLP No. 19486/2017, which
was dismissed in limine, vide order dated 08.8.2017. A copy of the said
order has been handed over by learned counsel for the appellant and is taken
on record.
6. Now the appellant/wife has challenged the very same order dated
09.5.2017. On the last date of hearing, we had enquired from learned
counsel for the appellant that in view of the findings returned in the order
dated 09.5.2017 passed in MAT APP (F.C.) No. 80/2017, holding that the
impugned order, fixing pendente lite maintenance in respect of both the
children appears to be reasonable, which order was upheld by the Supreme
Court, would the appellant still be inclined to press the present appeal.
Learned counsel had sought time to obtain instructions from his client.
Today, he states that he has instructions to press the present appeal on
merits.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order by
submitting that the learned Family Court has noted the expenses incurred by
the wife in respect of the minor children, as in the year 2013, when the
application under Section 24 of the Act was filed but not thereafter. He
states that a subsequent affidavit filed by the appellant in May, 2014
(Annexure A-7 at Page 130-161), has not been considered.
8. On a perusal of the said affidavit, it transpires that the appellant has
herself stated in Part III, clause 3 that the monthly expenditure incurred on
the education of the children is Rs.47,777/-. A break-up of the said
expenditure was also furnished by the appellant at page 144. One of the
expenses referred to in the said statement is of the daughter undergoing
PMT coaching, for which the appellant claims to have incurred
Rs.1,25,000/-, on an annual basis (Rs.10,416/- per month). Pertinently, in
the year 2013, the appellant's daughter was all of 13 years of age. On the
date of filing the affidavit in the year 2014, she was aged about 14 years.
Learned counsel has not been able to point out the nature of coaching that a
14 years old student was expected to undergo for taking the P.M.T.
9. A latest affidavit of expenses stated to have been filed by the
appellant before the Family Court in the year 2015 (Annexure A-8), again
refers to the daughter's PMT coaching costing Rs.1,25,000/- p.a., with a
note appended along side that she is planning to join the same. In other
words, the appellant's daughter has yet to join PMT Coaching classes but a
claim has been made in anticipation of the expenses likely to be incurred by
the appellant on her coaching, to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- per year.
Similarly, the appellant has claimed a sum of Rs.60,000/- p.a. from the
respondent as expenses incurred towards "Activity classes (dance and
piano)" in respect of her daughter, with a note that she plans to join the
classes but she has not joined so far. The appellant also claims to have
incurred a sum of Rs.60,000/- per year towards her son's tennis coaching
classes, without enclosing any receipt in support of the same. Furthermore,
though the appellant is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses in
respect of both her dependent children, from her employer, she has
mentioned that a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month is incurred by her on their
medical expenses. It is apparent from the above that the statement of
account filed by the appellant, has been unreasonably inflated and it is not
supported by relevant receipts.
10. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view
that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. It has already
been indicated above that the very same order was challenged by the
respondent/husband in an appeal and his pleas were turned down by holding
that the amount of maintenance awarded for each child was after taking into
consideration their age, stage of education and family background etc. The
same reasoning holds true for the appellant herein. Accordingly, we declined
to entertain the present appeal, which is dismissed in limine along with the
pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017
ap/rd/na
