Delhi High Court
Sharanjit Kaur Kohli vs Ramandeep Singh Kohli on 19 November, 2018
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgement: 19th November, 2018
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 92/2018
SHARANJIT KAUR KOHLI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Shubham Bhalla and Ms. Roopam
Rai, Advocates
versus
RAMANDEEP SINGH KOHLI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the
learned Family Court whereby an application filed by the
appellant/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'HMA') was allowed. The Family Court has
awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs.20,000/- per month alongwith
litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/- with effect from the date she
vacates the rented accommodation occupied by the parties before their
separation.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal
are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
28.03.2011 at Delhi as per Sikh rites. No children were born out of the
said wedlock. Parties have been residing separately since 22.10.2016.
On 14.12.2016, the respondent/husband had filed a divorce petition
under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of HMA before the Family Court.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 92/2018
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife has strongly urged before us
that the respondent/husband is an accomplished Chef. He is working
for a high-end restaurant, which is evident upon the snap-shots of
various sites available on the internet which would support her
submission. The learned counsel for the appellant/wife has drawn the
attention of the Court to various photographs to show that the
respondent/husband has been catering to the rich and famous and thus,
he must be earning a huge package and not as assessed by the learned
Family Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
the Family Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent has
suppressed and concealed his true income.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband has opposed
this appeal and submits that the respondent/husband is a free-lancer
Chef & Consultant and has no fixed source of income. Additionally,
the counsel contends that merely because the respondent is a Chef and
in case there are photographs with celebrities does not mean that the
respondent/husband is earning a huge package as alleged by the
appellant/wife. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant
is a trained beautician and has worked with VLCC and was an
employee with the Shahnaz Husain Group and in fact she has
concealed her true income being a trained beautician and the
substantial amount earned by her.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully
examined the record. To decide the case on hand, it would be
necessary to reproduce para 6.2 of the impugned order which reads as
under:
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 92/2018
"6.2 Petitioner is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per
month for a premises, which is not used by any of the parties.
He, however, is incurring the aforesaid expenses. Estimating his
personal expenses to be about Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per
month, this Court is of the opinion that he has disposable
income of about Rs. 60,000/- per month. If petitioner pays an
amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent, his
disposable income would be left with about Rs. 40,000/-.
Estimating that the respondent has the capacity to earn Rs.
20,000/- per month, this Court is, therefore, of the opinion that
an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance
pendentelite would bring her income at par with that of
petitioner/husband. Thus, the ends of justice would be served."
6. It is often seen that the spouses do not reflect their true and correct
income making the task of the Family Court difficult to assess the
correct income of the spouses. The Family Court has to rely upon
guess work to assess the income of the spouses. In the case of Jasbir
Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., reported at
(1997) 7 SCC 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized the fact
that spouses in the proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully
disclose their true income and therefore some guess work on the part
of the Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court has also
observed that "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".
7. The present case is a perfect example of the parties not reflecting the
true and correct income by the spouses before the Family Court.
During the course of hearing, we had asked the learned counsel for the
appellant/wife as to where the parties were last residing. We are
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 92/2018
informed that the parties last resided in a Flat at Dwarka at a rent of
Rs.24,000/- per month. No details and supporting documents have
been placed on record by the wife/appellant to establish her claim that
the husband/respondent is earning more than one lakh a month except
the photographs to show that he interacts with the rich and famous.
8. In this background, we find there is no force in the argument made by
the counsel for the appellant/wife for the reason that if the earning of
the husband was more than Rs.1.0 lakh per month, he would be living
in a Flat on a higher rate of rent and not at a rent of Rs.24,000/- per
month. Additionally, we find that the Family Court has carefully
analysed the probable income of the respondent/husband and rightly
assessed the same to be Rs.1.0 lakh per month. We have also taken
note that there is no document to show that the appellant/wife is a
trained beautician, although the appellant worked with high-profile
Group of beauticians.
9. Having regard to the complete facts of the present case and taking into
consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case
of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.)(supra), we find no infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Family Court. The present appeal is devoid of
any merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
JYOTI SINGH, J.
NOVEMBER 19, 2018//pst
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 92/2018
