Delhi High Court
Achal Yadav vs Preeti Yadav on 19 September, 2023
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th September, 2023
+ MAT.APP. (FC.) 192/2022
ACHAL YADAV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurav Deshraj, Advocate with
appellant through video conferencing.
versus
PREETI YADAV ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Juhi Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC)
& Mr. Saral Arora, Advocate with
respondent through video
conferencing.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. An appeal under Section 19 of the Family courts Act, 1984 has been
filed by the appellant/ husband against the Order dated 21.09.2022 granting
interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.8000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- to the
respondent/ wife for herself and Rs.4,000/- for the minor child) in an
application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the parties got married on 18.01.2014 and
were blessed with one daughter on 17.05.2015. On account of the
matrimonial discord, the parties separated in March, 2019 and since then the
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2023
16:47:19
child has been in the exclusive custody of the respondent/ wife. She filed an
application under Section 24 of the HMA seeking maintenance, in the
divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. It was claimed by her that appellant/ husband is working in DRDO
and also has agricultural and rental income which adds up to Rs.1 lakh per
month. On the other hand, she has been residing in parental home since
March, 2019 and she and her daughter are surviving on the mercy of her
parents since the appellant has not made any provision for their expenses.
The respondent had thus, claimed Rs.70,000/- per month as maintenance for
herself and the daughter.
4. The appellant/ husband had contested this application and claimed
that there is concealment of facts as the respondent/ wife is working as a
teacher but has failed to disclose this fact. He claimed that he had borrowed
Rs.1.5 to 2 lakhs to make the respondent do her JBT course, despite which
she left the matrimonial home. He filed his affidavit of Income stating his
income to be Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month being a contractual
employee with DRDO. He further stated that he has been voluntarily paying
Rs.3,000/- per month since 17.09.2021. The appellant further stated that
their child is a special child for which he has got done the Health Insurance
coverage. He also asserted that the respondent's father has a rental income
of about Rs.1 lakh. FIR under Section 498-A/406 IPC has been registered
against him in addition to a petition under Domestic Violence Act.
5. The learned Judge, Family Court considering the respective income of
both the parties held that the appellant was getting a salary of about
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. He, therefore, granted interim
maintenance in the sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2023
16:47:19
Rs.4,000/- per month to the daughter.
6. Aggrieved by the said Order, the husband/ appellant has filed the
present appeal.
7. It is asserted by the appellant that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, had declined to grant any
interim maintenance to the respondent on two grounds namely suppression
of material facts and not disclosure of her having the qualification of JBT
and CTET and also because it was not shown prima facie that Domestic
Violence had been committed upon her. However. Rs.5,000/- were granted
as maintenance to the minor child. An appeal was preferred by the
respondent before the learned Sessions Court but the same was dismissed
vide Order dated 19.11.2022.
8. The appellant had further submitted that on account of unscrupulous
complaints made in his office by the respondent and also because he had to
take multiple leave on account of the various litigations, he lost his job on
31.03.2022. Despite this fact and also that maintenance has been declined to
the respondent, the same has been granted to the respondent vide impugned
Order which is liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that in terms
of Kusum Sharma judgment and her educational and professional
qualifications of JBT/ CTET, no person should remain unemployed and not
earn. In fact, she is gainfully employed but has misrepresented her true
working status. This is supported by the factum that she has not submitted
her current bank statements before the learned Judge, Family Court.
Moreover, during the visitations the child has disclosed to the appellant that
the respondent is employed in "Sant Nirankari Public School, Paschim
Vihar" as a teacher. She has indicated her status as non-employed. For
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2023
16:47:19
these reasons the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.
9. Submissions heard.
10. The appellant had submitted his salary slip and considering the same
his monthly income has been assessed by the learned Judge, Family Court as
about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.
11. The next question arises in respect of the respondent. During the
arguments, it was not denied that she is a qualified JBT and has the
qualifications of CTET, but had asserted that she was unable to get any job.
It was also submitted that because of the daughter being a special child, she
needs to take care and is unable to pursue any job. Pertinently, under the
Domestic Violence Act petition, the interim maintenance has been declined
to the respondent on the ground that she had failed to disclose her true
educational qualifications and also to prove her allegations of Domestic
Violence. She was declined any interim maintenance, though Rs.5,000/-
were granted for the maintenance of the minor child. This Order had been
upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in appeal.
12. It cannot be over looked that respondent is professionally qualified,
educated lady. So being the case, her assertions that she has not been able to
work, cannot be accepted especially when there are specific averments that
she has taken up a job in Sant Nirankari Public School, Paschim Vihar. The
respondent, therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance.
13. However, it cannot be over looked that the minor child is a special
child and Rs.4,000/- awarded to her, cannot be held sufficient to cater to her
special needs. In these circumstances, the interim maintenance is awarded
to the child in the sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. We, accordingly modify the
impugned Order and grant Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance for
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2023
16:47:19
the daughter. The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2023
va
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:26.09.2023
16:47:19
