Delhi High Court
Pankaj Raheja vs Kiara (Minor) Through Her Mother ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
+ CRL.REV.P. 240/2024, CRL.M.A. 5490/2024, CRL.M.A.
5491/2024 and CRL.M.A. 5492/2024
PANKAJ RAHEJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Advocate
versus
KIARA (MINOR) THROUGH HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT NITIKA KATHURIA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 397/401 read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated
21.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court (N/E), Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi in Mt. Case No. 495/2022, whereby he has been asked to pay interim
maintenance @ Rs.35,000/- per month to the minor child/respondent.
2. A perusal of the records would show that marriage between the
petitioner and respondent's mother was solemnized on 06.02.2019 and out
of their wedlock, the respondent was born. In the maintenance petition filed
on behalf of the respondent, it was claimed that on 22.03.2021, the
respondent alongwith her mother were thrown out of the matrimonial home,
and since then they had been residing separately. It was further claimed that
respondent's mother has been employed in Unacademy-Sorting Hat
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. however, she is unable to maintain the child/respondent
as she has various other liabilities. It was also claimed that petitioner has
been working as Head of Contacts in Ease My Trip and drawing a salary of
Rs.1.5 lacs per month. It was further claimed that petitioner has no other
liability, except maintaining his father, who is already getting pension of
Rs.22,000/- per month. Maintenance petition is also premised on the ground
that respondent is suffering from autism and requires medical treatment, the
cost of which is claimed to be approximately Rs.50,000/- per month.
3. Petitioner resisted the maintenance petition by claiming that he was
working on contractual basis and was earning around Rs.60,000/- to
Rs.70,000/- per month. Though petitioner has claimed that his parents are
dependent on him however, the Family Court noted that petitioner's father
had retired from Haryana Govt. services and was getting a pension of
Rs.16,000/- per month. The impugned order further records that petitioner's
bank account, maintained with Punjab National Bank, had a credit entry in
the sum of Rs.90,000/- received from his father, which indicates that the
petitioner's father is not financially dependent on him. The petitioner filed a
supplementary affidavit before the Family Court stating therein that during
the financial year 2019-2020, his income, after deducting taxes, was
Rs.9,84,857/- and that for the next financial year i.e., 2020-21 was
Rs.7,68,065/-. It was further disclosed that he was employed with KEYTEL
Global, SAU as Supplier (Consultant) on contract basis with effect from
06.02.2023 to February, 2024. As per the service agreement, petitioner was
being paid 2000 USD including VAT and commission @ 5% of the value of
the closed contract. A reading of the service agreement showed that the
petitioner could claim justifiable expenses upto 400 pounds per month,
without taking written consent from the client. The impugned order further
analyzed the bank account of the petitioner, maintained at State Bank of
India, where there is a credit entry of Rs.1,62,000/- on 06.03.2023, besides
Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, from KEYTEL. Learned Family Court has taken
a conservative estimate of the petitioner's income by assessing his monthly
income to be about Rs.1.5 lacs per month, by placing reliance on the
decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.1 and Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep
Vohra2. The Family Court divided the assessed income of the petitioner into
three units, out of which one unit has been granted to the respondent. No
maintenance has however, been granted to the petitioner's wife i.e., mother
of the respondent. It is not disputed that respondent is suffering from autism.
Petitioner has also not denied that respondent requires medical expenses
incurred on account of her aforesaid ailment.
4. On overall appreciation of the material placed on record, this Court is
of the considered opinion that no modification in the impugned order is
required at this stage. Consequently, the petition alongwith pending
applications are dismissed. However, it is clarified that in case at the time of
disposal of the maintenance petition, the Family Court comes to the
conclusion that the respondent is entitled to a lesser or higher maintenance,
the Family Court would be at liberty to grant adjustment of the arrears either
way.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 20, 2024/ga
(2021) 2 SCC 324
2004 SCC OnLine Del 192
