Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 22 October, 2018
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 22nd October, 2018
+ MAT.APP(F.C.) 111/2018
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Neeraj Sinha, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC
(Civil) GNCTD with Mr. Zahid
Hanief and Ms. Sana Naseem, Advs.
for R-1
Ms. Laimon Rani Boro, Adv. (proxy)
for Ms. Vibha Mahajan, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
MAT.APP(F.C.) 111/2018
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2018
passed on an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance for herself and her 13
years old minor daughter. The marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 12.12.2002. A daughter was born out of their wedlock
on 16.06.2004. The Family Court has assessed the income of the
respondent/wife in line with the minimum wages and fixed
maintenance of Rs.10,000/-per month.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court has
failed to take note of the fact that respondent is also working as a Safai
Karamchari on contractual basis in Government Girls Higher
Secondary School, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and is currently
earning Rs.10,000/-per month whereas, the appellant/husband does not
have a regular job. He works in a tours and travel company and gets
no salary, as has been noticed by the Family Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the
impugned order dated 15.02.2018. We deem it appropriate to
reproduce paras 9 to 13, wherein the Family Court has given reasons
for fixing the maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month. We find that the
appellant has not disclosed the name of his employer and the salary
which is being paid to him. Paras 9 to 13 reads as under:
" 9. A study of the income asset affidavit of the
petitioner/ non-applicant reveals a fictional story. The
petitioner claims to be working with a Tour and Travel
Operator and getting no salary. He claims his house hold
expenditure to be Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- per month. The
Court cannot believe that a person can survive in Delhi
at an expenditure of Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- pm. He is
apparently concealing the true facts.
10. The petitioner, present in the Court, is an able bodied
person, who admits to be a matriculate.
11.As per notification No. F.Addl.LC/Lab/MW/2016/4859
dated 03.03.2017 in continuation of earlier notification
no.-F12(1)142/11/MW/Lab/2023-2047 dated 26.07.2011
issued by GNCT, Delhi, minimum wages for a
matriculate person, is Rs.16,182/- per month. The
petitioner has also admitted in his income asset affidavit
that he has income from other sources. Though, in the
affidavit he claims the amount of Rs.1500/- per month;
since the Court has disbelieved his affidavit; the Court
shall guess-estimate the income from other sources to be
atleast Rs.5000/- in a month. The income of the petitioner
can therefore, be estimated to be more than Rs.20,000/-
in a month.
12. The arguments of Mr. Sinha that respondent is
working on contract basis as a Safai Karamchari in a
Government Girl Higher Secondary School, is not borne
from any document on record and therefore, cannot be
accepted to be correct.
13. The respondent admits her income of Rs.3000/- in a
month by working as a Maid. The same shall not dis-
entitle her or the minor child from claiming maintenance
pendentelite from the petitioner/ husband."
4. Learned counsel for appellant has urged before us that the appellant is
working as an Office Assistant in BM Tour and Travel at Kalkaji,
Delhi and at that time, his salary was Rs.4,500/- per month and
currently, he is not regularly employed.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.)
v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., reported at (1997) 7 SCC 7 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".
6. The Courts have repeatedly held that in family matters, there is a
tendency of spouses not to disclose their correct and true income. The
present case is no different. In our view, the Family Court has rightly
observed that it is a fictitious story as it is not believable that an Office
Assistant in a travel company would be paid salary of Rs.4,500/- per
month. Even otherwise, the appellant has failed to place even a single
document or a certificate of his employer in support thereof.
7. We find no infirmity in the order of the Family Court, which requires
interference.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
JYOTI SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 22, 2018
PB
