Delhi High Court
Vijay Kushwaha vs Chanchal on 24 July, 2018
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on : 24th July, 2018
+ MAT APP (FC) 165/2018
VIJAY KUSHWAHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kunal Manav, Advocate.
Versus
CHANCHAL .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
CM APPLN. No. 28781/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM APPLN. No. 28780/2018 (95 days delay)
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
for seeking condonation of 95 days delay in filing the present appeal.
Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 95
days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
MAT APPL. (FC) 165/2018
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant/husband under
Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the orders
dated 25.01.2018 and 10.05.2018 passed by the Judge, Family
Court, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the appellant was
directed to pay maintenance to respondent/wife @ Rs.4,500/- p.m.
from the date of filing of application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. 22.09.2017.
2. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Trial Court are as
under :
"The petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 (1)
(C) of Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of
marriage. As per allegations, petitioner and
respondent were friends. Respondent proposed to
marry her but petitioner made condition that she
would marry him with the consent of parents of both
sides. Respondent took the petitioner to a temple and
obtained her signatures on some documents as also
some joint photographs on the pretext that he would
show them to his parents for obtaining their consent
for social marriage. On 20.05.2015, he handed over
the photocopy of marriage certificate issued from
Arya Samaj Vedic Sanskar Trust saying that their
marriage has already been solemnized and there was
no need for consent of parents of either side and
asked her to join his company. It has been stated that
respondent had got prepared the documents
fraudulently and by misrepresentation. They never
resided together and marriage has not been
consummated at any point of time."
3. After appreciating the material placed on record and hearing both
the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, vide impugned order
dated 25.01.2018, fixed the monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500/- to
be paid by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife. The
appellant/husband filed an application seeking review of aforesaid
order which was partly allowed and the appellant/husband was
directed to make the payment of pendent lite maintenance to the
petitioner @ Rs.4,500/- p.m. from the date of filing of the
application i.e. 22.09.2017. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the
appellant/husband filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/husband
submits that the learned Trial Court erred in fixing the amount of
maintenance without considering the fact that the
appellant/husband is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and the
Minimum Wages Act of Delhi would not be applicable on the
appellant. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
appellant has furnished a copy of notification, issued by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh bearing No. 471-500/Pravartan-
(MW)/15 dated 27.03.2017 which prescribes the minimum wages
for unskilled labour as Rs.7400.46 for the period from 01.04.2017
to 30.09.2017.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
6. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to
award maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a party
who has no independent source of income sufficient for his/her
support during the pendency of the proceedings under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, having regard to the income of the parties.
7. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act reads as under:
"Section - 24 Maintenance pendente lite and
expenses of proceedings - Where in any proceeding
under this Act, it appears to the court that either the
wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no
independent income sufficient for her or his support
and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may,
on the application of the wife or the husband, order
the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of
the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding
such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own
income and the income of the respondent, it may seem
to the court to be reasonable."
8. In fixing the quantum of maintenance the Courts cannot adopt a
straight jacket formula, as the same shall be determined on the
basis of several factors which may differ from case to case. Even
otherwise, the parties very rarely disclose their true income before
the Court. Hence to arrive at a realistic calculation, the Court is
bound to proceed in the background of the status of the parties,
their respective needs and liabilities and the capacity of the
husband to pay.
9. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun &
Others, reported at (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7, the Apex
Court has observed that :
"Para 7 ......Considering the diverse claims made by
the parties one inflating the income and the other
suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work
does enter for arriving at the income of the husband.
It cannot be done by any mathematical precision."
10. In the instant case, the appellant/husband failed to produce any
documentary proof with regard to his employment status and also
his actual income and by not disclosing his sources of income, the
appellant/husband is trying to defeat the legitimate right of the
respondent/wife to claim maintenance and also shirking his
responsibilities. Accordingly, we are of the view that it is not
equitable to allow the relief of reduction in amount of maintenance
to the appellant/husband when he himself has not come with clean
hands and is trying to hide the true facts from the Court. The
appellant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of non-disclosure of
his income despite being bound in law to disclose it. Thus his plea
that the Minimum Wages Act of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable
to him as he is a resident of Uttar Pradesh, does not come to his
rescue. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to
interfere in the impugned orders.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
JULY 24, 2018
gr
