Delhi High Court
Shekhar Sharma vs Purnima Sharma on 1 April, 2024
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 01.04.2024
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2024
SHEKHAR SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Advocate.
versus
PURNIMA SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2024 and CM APPL. 19053/2024 [Application
filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 172 days
in filing the appeal]
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 22.08.2023
passed by the Family Court.
3. Via the impugned judgment and order, the Family Court has
dismissed the application preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 [in short, "1955 Act"] by the appellant/husband.
4. The case set up by the appellant/husband before the Family Court is
that he has no regular source of income and that he was earning Rs.8,000/-
per month, which was much less than what the respondent/wife is earning
i.e., Rs.90,000/- per month.
5. We are told that presently the appellant/husband is earning Rs.9,000/-
per month, out of which Rs.4,000/- is paid as maintenance for the upkeep of
the children.
6. In sum, the appellant/husband seeks maintenance from the
respondent/wife.
7. We have queried the counsel for the appellant/husband as to whether
the salary slip concerning income received by the appellant/husband was
placed on record before the Family Court.
7.1 Learned counsel for the appellant/husband says that no salary slip was
issued to the appellant/husband by the employer, and therefore, could not be
placed on record before the Family Court.
7.2 According to the appellant's counsel, the salary was received in cash.
8. We have also queried whether the cash receipt was signed and
submitted by the appellant/husband to his employer.
8.1 Counsel for the appellant/husband says that no such document
appears to have been generated.
9. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the
appellant/husband is earning Rs.9,000/- as claimed, per month, by way of
salary.
10. The Family Court has recorded in the impugned judgment and order
that there are several entries which show that substantial amounts of money
stand credited from time to time in the bank account maintained by the
appellant/husband.
10.1 For convenience, the relevant part of the impugned judgment and
order are set forth hereafter:
"....As per bank statement, respondent is receiving regular entries in
his bank account and during the period between 03.01.2021 to
13.02.2023, he has deposits of amount of Rs. 49,000/ - on 06/01/2021,
Rs. 3,600/- on 27/01/2021, Rs. 1,500/- on 31 /01/ 2021, Rs. 5,000 /- on
05/02/2021 and Rs 6000/- on 07/02/2021, Rs. 6,000/- on 13/03/2021,
Rs. 8000/- on 15/04/2021, Rs. 12,000/- on 13/10/2021, Rs. 10000/- on
21/12/21 and Rs. 25,000/- on 18/04/2022, Rs. 25,000/ - on two
occasions on 06/05/2022, Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5000/- on 04/05/2022
respectively. Rs. 52,000/- deposited on 07/06/2022, Rs. 35,000/- on
07/07/2022, Rs. 20,000/- on 12/05/2022 and Rs. 10,000/- on
14/08/2022 and Rs. 10,000/- on many occasions regularly..."
11. Given this position, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order.
12. We may also note that this appeal has been filed after a delay of
nearly 172 days.
13. At the stage when we were about to conclude our decision, learned
counsel for the appellant/husband has placed before us a judgment of the
learned Single Judge rendered in Rani Sethi v. Sunil Sethi, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 1632.
14. A perusal of the judgment shows that relevant material was placed on
record to demonstrate the income said to have been earned by the petitioner.
It is well-established that questions concerning maintenance are pivoted on
the relevant material placed before the Court. As we have indicated above,
although there are credit entries in the bank account of the
appellant/husband, there is no real explanation as to the source of the credit
entries. The judgment is, in our view, distinguishable on facts, and
therefore, will not help the cause of the appellant/husband.
15. Given this position, the appeal is dismissed.
16. Pending application shall also stand disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
APRIL 1, 2024/tr
