Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Kinri Dhir - Appellant
Versus
Veer Singh - Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 60 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - [Sections 18(1)(e), 23, 26] - The court dismissed the contempt petition of the Petitioner/Wife against the Respondent No.1/Husband for alleged violations of maintenance directions. The court found that the Respondent No.1 had been paying the requisite maintenance as directed by the Family Court. The court analyzed the income and expenditure affidavit filed by the Respondent and concluded that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the Respondent. The court also directed the Respondent to provide an alternate accommodation if the serviced apartment was not provided to the Petitioner/Wife and to continue paying a sum towards the Petitioner's daily expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner/Wife filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Family Court directed the Respondent/Husband to provide maintenance to the Petitioner and the minor son. The Petitioner/Wife filed a contempt petition alleging violations by the Respondent. The court dismissed the contempt petition, leading to the review petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Respondent had been complying with the maintenance directions and that there was no wilful disobedience. The court also clarified the scope of contempt jurisdiction and the limitations of review power.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged violations of maintenance directions by the Respondent, the interpretation of the income and expenditure affidavit, and the scope of contempt jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-open issues already decided and that it is not an appellate power. The court also clarified the scope of contempt jurisdiction and the limitations of review power.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
REVIEW PET. 141/2022 & CM APPL. 26165/2022
1. The instant review petition under Order XLVII read with Section 114 of the CPC has been filed against the Judgment of this Court dated 26.04.2022 rendered in CONT.CAS(C) 60/2022, whereby the contempt petition of the Petitioner herein/Wife was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:
i. The Petitioner herein/Wife filed a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and an application under Sections 18(1)(e) read with Sections 23 & 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "DV Act").
ii. Vide Order dated 09.11.2021, the learned Principle Judge, Family Court (South-East), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in G.P. No. 16/2021, directed as under:
"Regarding the maintenance which has been claimed by the Petitioner, it is an admitted fact that the rent of the serviced apartment along with all the amenities and bills are being provided by the Respondent till date to the Petitioner. Therefore, in addition to the facilities which have been provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent and which he will continue to provide, he will also provide to the petitioner a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- per month for the minor son from the date of filing of application till the decision of case on merits"
iii. It is stated that MAT Appeal (F.C.) No. 2/2022 against the Order dated 09.11.2021 had been filed by the Petitioner herein/Wife, and vide Order dated 06.01.2022, this Court recorded Respondent No.1/Husband's statement that "the Respondent is complying in letter and spirit with the impugned order and shall continue to pay the amounts due as per the same".
iv. It is stated that alleging consistent violations on the part of the Respondent No.1/Husband of the directions rendered by the Ld. Family Court in its Order dated 09.11.2021 as well as the undertaking given by the Respondent No.1/Husband, the Petitioner/Wife approached this Court by way of Cont.Cas(C) 60/2022.
v. This Court, vide its Judgement dated 26.04.2022, dismissed the contempt petition of the Petitioner herein/Wife and recorded the following observations:
"20. Material on record in the instant case discloses that the Respondent No.1 has been paying the requisite maintenance that has been directed by the learned Family Court in its Order dated 09.11.2021. In the said Order, the Respondent No.1 had been directed to pay the rent of the serviced apartment, along with all the amenities and bills, as well as to provide the Petitioner and the minor son a monthly maintenance of Rs.1 Lakh each from the date of filing of the Petition, i.e. 18.01.2021.
21. The Trial Court based its decision on the income and expenditure affidavit filed by the Respondent. The relevant portion of the income and expenditure affidavit reads as under:
| 27 | Whether your spouse is staying in the matrimonial home? If not staying at matrimonial home, relationship and income of the person with whom the spouse is staying? If staying in a rented accommodation what is the rent being paid? | Yes, staying at C-99, Defence Colony, New Delhi, Delhi-110024 Rent:3,91,911/- P.M (Car parking, housekeeping and room service, Internet Access, Satellite TV, breakfast, 24 hrs reception assistance, AC maintenance, F & B service, 24 hrs running hot water and Linen laundary) Paid by the deponent Veer Singh |
| 28 | Name and age of children from the marriage? | Shakyasimha Singh - 2 years |
| 29 | Who has the custody of the children? | Joint |
| 30 | Name and address of school(s) where the children are studying? | NA |
| 31 | Monthly expenditure of the children? | Total Exp Per month: 1,79,159/- |
| 32 | Details of expenditure on children, | |
| i) School/College fees | NA | |
| ii) Creche/Day care/After School care | NA | |
| iii) Books/Stationery | 8,747/- P.M | |
| iv) Private Tuitions | NA | |
| v) Sports/Music/Theater | 23,567/- P.M | |
| vi) Outings/summer camps/vacations | NA | |
| vii) Entertainment | NA | |
| viii) Pocket Money/Allowances | NA | |
| ix) Others | Paid by Deponent: R | |
Civil contempt necessitates willful disobedience of court orders; mere non-compliance is insufficient unless clear intent to defy exists.
Willful disobedience of maintenance orders, assessment of financial capacity by competent Courts, refusal to accept lack of resources plea to set aside Court orders
Repeated non-compliance and disobedience of court orders and undertakings constitute contempt of court.
The court emphasized that the orders passed by the Courts must be fully honored and that the respect, confidence, and supremacy of judicial proceedings must be maintained at all costs to secure the r....
The determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the parties and the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
The maintenance amount must ensure adequate support for the dependent spouse and children without imposing an unreasonable burden on the payer, considering the financial circumstances of both parties....
The court upheld joint parental responsibility for child support, clarifying that maintenance cannot be denied based on financial hardship without thorough examination of the parties' abilities.
The right to residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of other family members, while the obligation to provide maintenance is crucial for the livelihood of th....
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
