Delhi High Court
Chander Arya vs Monika Arya on 27 August, 2018
$~51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 27th August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 1211/2018 and Crl. M.A. 4434-4435/2018
CHANDER ARYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary and Ms.
Preeti, Advocates
versus
MONIKA ARYA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Mahajan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner and the respondent herein were concededly
married to each other on 02.09.2006 and out of their cohabitation a
girl child took birth on 15.07.2007. It is the case of the petitioner
(husband) himself that the respondent (wife) had left the matrimonial
home on 25.11.2009, this being subject matter of daily diary entry
no.22 recorded in the local police station. The parties have been
estranged from each other ever since. The respondent/wife had filed a
petition (no. 5550614/2016), inter alia, under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short,
the Domestic Violence Act) against the petitioner in January 2013,
thereby seeking various reliefs including maintenance allowance for
self and also for the minor child of the parties who concededly has
been in her care, custody and control. On the application of the
respondent/wife, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated
18.08.2017, in the petition directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/-
p.m. as maintenance for her and for the minor child of the parties, this
to take care of their needs for food, clothing, household expenses,
rented accommodation and other amenities of life, the order having
been made effective from the date of filing of the petition till final
adjudication thereupon.
2. The petitioner / husband had challenged the said order in the
court of Sessions by appeal (CA 256/17) which was disposed of by
judgment dated 06.01.2018 whereby the directions for payment of
maintenance allowance were reduced partially to Rs.40,000/- p.m.
3. The petitioner approached this court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to bring another challenge to the
said orders of the two courts below.
4. The petition at hand is resisted by the respondent. It was
submitted that though the execution petition has been pending, the
petitioner has failed to abide by the order of interim maintenance, he
having offered small amounts, which are not adequate to take care of
the needs of the respondent / wife or the minor child of the parties.
During the course of hearing, suggestions for some amicable
resolution of the matter by partial reduction by way of interim
arrangement also came up but the petitioner rejected the said
suggestions outright, his broad submission being that he does not have
any income of his own, he is himself dependent on his mother, his
father who had a business during his lifetime having passed away, the
business of the father having since closed down.
5. The Metropolitan Magistrate had called upon the petitioner to
discover the relevant facts on oath by filing his affidavit. A copy of
the said affidavit has been filed on record with the petition. It is
indeed incongruous that the petitioner on one hand describes his
mother to be a person dependent on him and at the same time in his
affidavit he would claim that even his own expenditure are borne by
his mother. The petitioner has been living in a double storeyed house
(no. 185-P) built on a plot of land admeasuring 291.67 sq. yds. in
Sector-7, Urban Estate, Gurugram, Haryana. He undoubtedly had a
right, title and interest in the said residential property. But then, just
around the time the parties to this litigation were on the verge of
separation, he appears to have executed documents relinquishing his
share in the said property in favour of his mother. He relies on the
decision of a permanent and continuous Lok Adalat held at Gurugram
in civil case no.651 decided on 11.01.2010. By this ruling of the
permanent Lok Adalat on the basis of a compromise, the petitioner
relinquished his share in the said house no.185-P, Sector-7, Urban
Estate, Gurugram and, as a consequence thereof, his mother who he
claims to be his dependent and also his benefactor, became the owner.
6. As per the case of the respondent/wife, the petitioner is a man of
means, earning Rs.5,00,000/- p.m. approximately from various
businesses. She would describe him to be a director of Om Arya
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jadu Ki Chadi company, One Pacific India Pvt.
Ltd. and CHM Construction Holding Pvt. Ltd. She refers to
documents indicating the petitioner to have participated in various
exhibitions, wherein he had invited internships in the business of Jadu
Ki Chadi since February 2017. The petitioner, while resisting the
prayer for maintenance allowance would, however, claim that he has
been struggling to set up business - the business in the name and style
of Graty Apparel Pvt. Ltd. having shut down and the business of Om
Arya Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. not being operational since 2015. He would
further explain that Jadu ki Chadi was merely an idea which was
floated but since rejected, he having run into overdues to the extent of
Rs.9,00,000/-. According to him, the other two companies One
Pacific India Pvt. Ltd. and CHM Construction Holding Pvt. Ltd.
belong to his sisters and that he does not derive any financial benefit
thereof. The documents though undoubtedly show his stake in the
said companies.
7. The documents on record include the copy of the passport of the
petitioner indicating certain foreign travels during relevant period.
The documents also include income tax returns for the assessment
year 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. Though in the first said income tax
return, he declared zero income, the subsequent ITRs reflect income
ranging from Rs.2,36,955/- to Rs.3,07,180/-. The income tax returns
for the anterior period or the period subsequent thereto have been
scrupulously withheld.
8. Having heard both sides and having perused the record, this
court agrees with the view taken by the courts below primarily to the
effect that the petitioner has tried to withhold the requisite information
about his actual income. His broad claim that he was jobless and
himself wholly dependent financially on his mother cannot per se be
believed.
9. It is inconceivable that a person who lives in a double storeyed
house built over a plot of land of decent size, whose name is
associated with a number of private companies, all apparently held
within the family, a person who was leading a life of comfort and
luxury including by frequent travels abroad, would not be having any
income of his own to support his estranged wife and the child living
with the said wife.
10. In the above facts and circumstances, the view taken by the
courts below at the stage of interim order does not call for any
interference. The petition and the application filed therewith are
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 27, 2018
yg
