Back
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Akanksha Jain
Versus
Manish Jain
CM(M) No. 910 of 2010, Crl. M.A. No. 4595 of 2012 & Crl. M.A. No. 17724 of 2012
Decided On : 21-02-2014
Concealment - Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act - 24 of the Act - 125 Cr.P.C. - 498-A/406 IPC - Protection of Woman and Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [1955, 24, 125, 498-A/406, Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - The court examined the concealment of facts by the petitioner in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court found that the petitioner had failed to disclose her employment and income, leading to the dismissal of her application for maintenance. The court also considered the respondent's financial status and the standard of living enjoyed by the petitioner in her matrimonial home. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from the respondent from 1st February, 2012, till the disposal of the divorce petition, and fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.60,000 per month, in addition to her existing income and maintenance received under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court also directed the petitioner to inform the court and the respondent if her income exceeded Rs.20,000 per month. The court set aside the impugned order and awarded costs of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance from the respondent. The respondent had filed a divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty. The petitioner failed to disclose her employment and income in her application, leading to its dismissal by the trial court. The court also considered the respondent's financial status and the standard of living enjoyed by the petitioner in her matrimonial home.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had concealed her employment and income, leading to the dismissal of her application for maintenance. The court also considered the respondent's financial status and the standard of living enjoyed by the petitioner in her matrimonial home. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from the respondent from 1st February, 2012, till the disposal of the divorce petition, and fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.60,000 per month, in addition to her existing income and maintenance received under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court also directed the petitioner to inform the court and the respondent if her income exceeded Rs.20,000 per month. The court set aside the impugned order and awarded costs of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner.
Issues: Concealment of employment and income by the petitioner in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the respondent's financial status and the standard of living enjoyed by the petitioner in her matrimonial home.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's failure to disclose her employment and income in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, led to the dismissal of her application for maintenance. The court considered the respondent's financial status and the standard of living enjoyed by the petitioner in her matrimonial home and held that she was entitled to maintenance from the respondent from 1st February, 2012, till the disposal of the divorce petition, and fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.60,000 per month, in addition to her existing income and maintenance received under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court also directed the petitioner to inform the court and the respondent if her income exceeded Rs.20,000 per month.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and awarded costs of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Akansha Jain against the impugned order dated 15th March, 2010 passed by ADJ-2 (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi in favour of her husband Manish Kumar Jain/respondent herein whereby her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was dismissed, inter-alia, mainly on the ground of concealment of facts.
Admitted facts between the parties
2. Both petitioner and respondent got married on 16th February, 2005 and started living at V-38 Green Park, New Delhi. The couple shifted to an accommodation at 303 SFS Apartment, Hauz Khas, New Delhi on 15th April, 2007. Disputes arose between the parties in July, 2007. In September, 2007 the respondent-husband filed a petition under the Act seeking divorce from his wife-petitioner on the grounds of cruelty. In November, 2007 the petitioner filed a petition under the Protection of Woman and Domestic Violence Act, 2005 along with interim relief i.e. maintenance etc. She also filed a complaint on 23rd November, 2007 under Section 498-A/406 IPC with CAW Cell, Amar Colony/Nanakpura, New Delhi against the respondent and his family members which was later on converted into an FIR bearing No.190/08, Police Station Friends Colony, New Delhi registered on 4th March, 2008. In December, 2007, she also filed another complaint case No.381/2008 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Mahila Court, Patiala House, New Delhi. Her interim application seeking maintenance amongst other relief under Section 23(2) of the Domestic Violence Act was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi by order dated 23rd April, 2008. However, in appeal being Criminal Appeal No.65/2008, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi granted the maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Now, the matter is fixed for evidence. In an Anticipatory Bail Application No.832/2008, the respondent in May, 2008 had returned the car along with jewellery items to the petitioner and the order was also passed in the application whereby the respondent was directed to deposit Rs.12 lac in the form of an FDR in the Trial Court towards the alleged return of disputed dowry articles.
3. The petitioner made the averment in the application filed by her under Section 24 of the Act in the month of April, 2008 that at the time of marriage she was housewife and was pursuing her course of Fashion Designing from J.D. Institute, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi. She was having no independent source of income to maintain herself and she is dependent upon the mercy of others for her day-to-day needs and requirements. It was stated that as far as the respondent-husband is concerned, he is a man of means and is doing flourishing business of garments exports under the name and style of M/s Master Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s A.M. Expo from D-15, Sector-3, Noida, UP and he is earning Rs.8-10 lacs per month. Apart from the above, he is also having various properties in Mumbai and Delhi and having many bank accounts, investments in shares, FDRs, LIC policies, debentures, mutual funds etc. worth crores of rupees. He is leading a luxurious life and maintaining mobile phone, motor-car etc. He is having all the luxuries and amenities in his house. The prayer in the application was made to issue a direction by this Court to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs per month to the petitioner-wife as maintenance pendentelite from the date of filing of the application till the pendency of the petition and also a sum of Rs.80,000/- to meet the litigation expenses.
4. In reply to the said application, it was stated by the respondent that the petitioner is an educated lady, admittedly qualified as a Fashion Designer and is fully capable of maintaining herself. The application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the petitioner in order to harass the respondent and intend to blackmail and extort money from the respondent. It was also stated
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
