Delhi High Court
Shammi Sehgal vs Ridhima Kruch on 7 December, 2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005433
$~26
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07. 12.2022
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 193/2022 & CM APPL. 53068-71/2022
SHAMMI SEHGAL ..... Appellant
versus
RIDHIMA KRUCH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Abhik Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant impugns Order dated 30.05.2022 whereby on an
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, interim
maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month has been awarded to the
Respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is in a
private job, and his total income is Rs.15,000/- per month, and the
Family Court has assessed the income at a higher level.
3. Respondent had filed an application contending that the
Appellant is a Real Estate Businessman, and is earning more than
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
Signing Date:09.12.2022
17:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005433
Rs.1,00,000/- a month, and she had prayed for maintenance at
Rs.50,000/- per month.
4. In the income affidavit filed by the Appellant, his contention is
that he is in a private job. No details of the private job or employment
have been given. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the
Appellant was not able to satisfactorily explain as to where the
Appellant is working. The stand of the Appellant kept changing
during submissions; from service to odd job to working in the office of
a property broker. Once again, no details of the employer, if any, or of
the place of business are forthcoming. In these circumstances, we are
not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant that he is earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and that also from a private job.
5. There is no material placed by the Appellant on record to show
as to what is the profession/employment of the Appellant, and what is
his income.
6. Accordingly, we find no reason to take a view different from
the view taken by the Family Court. The Family Court has, prima
facie, accepted the affidavit of the Appellant where he has contended
that he is doing service and is earning Rs.15,000/-. In those
circumstances, a sum of Rs.7000/- has been assessed as the
maintenance amount. In case, the contention of the Respondent is
correct that Appellant is property broker businessman then his income
would be far more than Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, we find no ground
to interfere with the impugned order to the said extent.
7. Another contention has been raised by the learned counsel for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
Signing Date:09.12.2022
17:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/005433
the Appellant that parties are already divorced. Reliance is also placed
on a document which is a document executed by the parties, styled as
'Mutual Divorce' on a Rs. 100/- Stamp Paper.
8. Admittedly, the parties are Hindu by religion and have got
married as per the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Such a document of
mutual divorce prepared inter se the parties without approaching a
court of law is of no consequence and has no force in the eyes of law
even if it is not challenged by either party. Thus the contention of the
Appellant that parties are mutually divorced is not sustainable.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
DECEMBER 7, 2022/ib
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMAL
Signing Date:09.12.2022
17:50
