Delhi High Court
Bhuvneshwar Sachdeva vs Kavita Sachdeva on 29 October, 2018
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 29th October, 2018
+ MAT.APP(F.C.) 43/2018 & CM Nos. 6701/2018, 42182-183/2018
BHUVNESHWAR SACHDEVA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Yadunandan Bansal and
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs. with the
appellant in person
versus
KAVITA SACHDEVA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. Vishal
Vashist, Advs.
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 06.12.2017 by which an
application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance has been allowed. The
Family Court has fixed the maintenance @15,000/- per month.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Family Court has
failed to take into consideration that the respondent/wife has been
working and her income has not been considered while fixing the
maintenance. It is also contended before us that the Family Court has
passed the order fixing the maintenance without taking note of the fact
that the appellant is barely earning Rs.10,000/- per month and thus not
in a position to comply with the order so passed. The Family Court has
laid extra emphasis on the fact that he is paying car loan installments
of Rs.11,858/- per month, which amount is infact being paid by his
parents and not by the appellant/husband herein.
3. Learned counsel also submits that although the Family Court has
observed that no document has been placed on record by the appellant
in support of his submission that the respondent is working, the
appellant has infact placed copies obtained from the office of the ESIC
and has placed a screen shot of the hotmail account of the father of the
respondent which shows that the respondent is working in a firm,
namely, MCB Electro Control (Sigma Brand) and earning Rs.15,000/-
per month. Learned counsel further submits that on account of the
respondent having concealed vital information pertaining to her
employment, on this ground alone the application filed under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should have been dismissed.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent on instructions from the
respondent who is present in Court submits that the respondent has
neither worked before marriage, during her marriage and post her
separation. She submits that firstly; the screen shot which has been
placed on record does not pertain to her account and secondly; the said
document has not been proved by the appellant herein.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the Family
Court has correctly observed that the appellant has not disclosed his
correct and true income. It is contended that in the first affidavit filed,
the appellant had stated that his income as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum,
being proprietor of M/s B.S. Enterprises. It was also deposed that he
owns a Swift car which he had purchased by taking a loan and pays
installments of Rs.11,858/- per month. Whereas in the second
affidavit filed, the appellant has shown his income @1,50,880/- per
annum. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a proprietor
of a firm is not expected to be earning less than the minimum wages
and thus, the appellant had filed a false affidavit and has concealed his
true and correct income. Counsel further contends that the appellant is
a man of means. Besides being a proprietor of M/s B.S. Enterprises, he
also owns immovable property and receives rent which has not been
disclosed by him. He also relies upon all the copies of balance-sheets
placed on record which show that there were stocks of more than
Rs.20 lakhs in the financial years 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016.
Besides copy of the reply has been filed and is being relied upon to
show that there were various transactions in the bank account of the
appellant which would belie the submission made in Court pertaining
to his income.
6. Counsel for the appellant in rejoinder submits that a subsequent
affidavit was filed on account of change of circumstances and no
concealment has been made.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. 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".
9. 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. A reading of the order of the Family Court
shows that the appellant claims to be earning Rs.1,20,000/- and
Rs.1,50,880/- per annum. It is not expected that a person who is
carrying on a business, would be earning Rs.10,000/- per month which
is even below the minimum wages for a skilled worker. It is also not
believable that the appellant who is maintaining a new car and has
raised a loan is taking the help of his parents to make the payment of
instalments. As far as the plea of the appellant with regard to the
respondent being employed is concerned, no evidence of any nature
has been placed on record which would support the plea of the
appellant. On the contrary, the respondent who is present in Court has
made a statement that she has never been employed pre, post
separation and during her marriage, which we have no reasons to
disbelieve. In our view, the Family Court has correctly assessed the
income of the petitioner as Rs.40,000/- per month and directed him to
pay maintenance @15,000/- per month. We find no infirmity in the
order passed by the Family Court. The appeal alongwith all the
pending applications stand dismissed.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he will file
an application seeking modifications/review of the order of the Family
Court on the basis of the subsequent documents which he has
received. In case, such an application is filed, the Family Court would
consider the matter on merit.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
JYOTI SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 29, 2018
//PB
