Delhi High Court
Samina & Ors. vs Syed Asim Pasha on 22 February, 2021
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 08.02.2021
Pronounced on: 22.02.2021
(1) + CRL.REV.P. 298/2020
SAMINA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate
Versus
SYED ASIM PASHA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advocate
(2) + CRL.REV.P. 17/2021 & Crl.M.A. 767-68/2021
SYED ASHIM PASHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents
Through: Mr.Amit Chadha, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State
Mr.Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
JUDGMENT
1. The order impugned in both the petitions is dated 20.02.2020 passed
by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,
vide which petitioner/husband- Syed Hashim Pasha [in Crl. Rev. P.
17/2021] has been directed to pay maintenance to petitioners/wife & two
daughters- Samina & Ors. [in Crl.Rev. P. 298/2020].
2. Since these revisions petitions have been directed against a common
impugned order, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage between Syed Hashim
Pasha/ husband and Samina/wife was solemnized 23.04.2015 at Delhi as
per Muslim law. Husband is said to be a permanent resident of Hyderabad
and an Engineer by profession. Wife is also said to be a highly educated
woman but unemployed. Out of this wedlock, parties are blessed with two
daughters. However, the marriage between the parties did not work and they
are started living separately since 28.05.2017. The husband is staying at
Hyderabad and wife is staying at her parents' house in Delhi. The husband
has alleged that despite repeated requests, wife has refused to return to the
matrimonial house, whereas the wife has alleged that her husband on
28.05.2017, under a conspiracy brought her and the two daughters to Delhi
to meet her parents and left them there and thereafter, put a condition that
she should come back only if she brings Rs.5 Lacs from her parents.
4. It is not disputed that multiple litigations between the parties are
pending.
5. The marital discord between the parties have been elaborated in detail
in the impugned order and is not required be mentioned here. What this
Court is required to determine is as to whether there is any illegality or
perversity in the impugned order awarding maintenance to the wife and if it
is exorbitant or on the lower side, as claimed by the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that since 28.05.2017, the parties have been living
separately and their two daughters are living with the wife. The wife has
claimed that the husband is an Engineer and earning Rs.2 Lacs p.m. and he
has no other liability except to maintain her and two daughters. She has
claimed monthly expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/-
each for two daughters.
7. On the other hand, husband has claimed that the wife is a well
educated lady and an international player in shooting and is an international
Coach and she imparts training at Tuglakabad Range, Delhi and is earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m. The husband has admitted that he is M.Sc in Informatics,
but has claimed that he is unemployed and has taken a loan of Rs.10 Lacs
and is paying Rs.21,988/- p.m. towards its payment. In addition, he has
claimed monthly expenditure of Rs.28,000/- towards household, transport,
medical and health club.
8. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife, the trial
court vide impugned order dated 28.02.2019 had awarded interim
maintenance of Rs.12,000/- p.m. to wife and Rs.4,000/- each for both
daughters and vide judgment dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, the said order was affirmed. While passing the
impugned order dated 20.02.2020, the court has observed that the husband
was adamant to not pay a single penny to the wife and children and because
of his conduct, his right to cross-examine the wife was closed and that there
were arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- out of
Rs.4,80,000/-.
9. While passing order dated 28.02.2019 The trial court relied upon
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District
Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7 and decisions of this Court in Kusum
Sharma Vs. Mahender Kumar Sharma 217 (2015) DLT 709 and Radhika
Vs. Vineet Rungta 110 (2004) DLT 111 and observed that parties in
matrimonial disputes always try to mislead the court and furnish incomplete
details and conceal the true facts specifically with regard to employment and
income and that the courts have to resort to the status and life style of parties
for fixing the maintenance.
10. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 does find mention of affidavits
of income and expenditure of both the sides, but is silent about furnishing of
copies of income tax returns, salary receipt or even bank statement of the
parties. In the absence of documentary evidence on record, the only option
left with the trial court is to determine maintenance keeping in mind the
totality of circumstances. Neither of the party brought any document on
record to establish their case. The husband has failed to bring on record any
proof with regard to employment of the wife. Similarly, wife has failed to
prove that husband is earning a handsome amount, however, she seeks
maintenance. Both the parties did not reach the court with clean hands and
have not disclosed true facts with regard to their income and expenditure, as
observed by the court below.
11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find that the amount of
maintenance fixed by the trial court is just and proper and does not call for
any interference.
12. The above captioned petitions and pending applications are
accordingly dismissed.
13. The judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
r
