Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Kusum Sharma @ Sudershan Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Sharma - Respondent
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 184 of 2016
Decided On : 26-09-2023
Mr. Anil K. Verma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashish Kapur & Mr. Anmol Kapur, Advocates with Respondent in person.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking maintenance must truthfully disclose their income and assets, and failure to do so may lead to the denial of maintenance.
Headnote:
Section 24 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The court discussed the appellant's claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 and the respondent's obligation to bear educational expenses. The court also referred to the decision in Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, MAT.APP. (F.C.) 143/2014 to support its conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming that the respondent had a high standard of living and was the owner of various properties. The court found that the appellant had concealed her income and assets, and had not been honest in disclosing her true source of income.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any pendente lite maintenance, but the respondent was directed to bear the educational expenses of their daughter.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's claim for interim maintenance, the respondent's obligation to bear educational expenses, and the appellant's disclosure of income and assets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant had concealed her income and assets, and had not been forthcoming in disclosing her income, leading to the denial of maintenance. The court also relied on a previous decision to support its conclusion.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as being without any merit.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the Order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, West Rohini, Delhi, whereby the Application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA, 1955") filed by the appellant/wife claiming interim maintenance, has been dismissed.
2. The Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, 1955 seeking divorce had been filed by the respondent/husband.
3. The appellant/wife on receiving the Notice appeared in the Court and filed the Application under Section 24 of the HMA, 1955 claiming pendete lite maintenance in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month, besides litigation expenses on the ground that the respondent/husband was the owner of Hotel Hill Height Pvt. Ltd., District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and also agricultural land at Chountra, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and was maintaining two cars and had a high standard of living. In addition, the respondent/husband also maintains a lady, Ms. Rajni and had purchased the property worth crores on her name. The respondent/wife was living a life of luxury and was even paying school fee of the children born from Ms. Rajni.
4. It is claimed that the respondent/husband maintained two drivers, two maid servants and had jewellery worth lakhs of rupees which was purchased from M/s Shyam Jewellers, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
5. The appellant/wife worked as the Director in the Hotel Hill Height. However, the Managing Director of the Hotel Hill Height, who is a friend of the respondent/husband, on coming to know inter se litigation between the appellant and the respondent, stopped paying anything to the appellant and also removed her from the Directorship. The appellant/wife had also disclosed that she was holding shares in the Hotel Hill Height, Manali, but she was having no source of income therefrom, as no dividend was being paid. Since then, the appellant has no source of income, except her own money which she had deposited in the banks and has an earning of Rs. 9,107/- per month. The appellant/wife had taken friendly loans from her relatives to pay for the educational fee of her daughter and also for their maintenance. The appellant/wife had also taken a loan of Rs. 10,25,000/- from Celestine Jain. She also had given a loan of Rs. 16,25,925/- to the respondent/husband which has not been returned.
6. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court observed that admittedly, the appellant/wife was holding some amount of shares in the Hotel Hill Height and no justifiable explanation was given as to how her income has stopped from the shares. Further, the appellant/wife had been maintaining herself and also the daughter and also paying for their expense which bellies the contention of the appellant/wife that she had no source of income. In these circumstances, it was concluded that the appellant/wife has concealed her income and material information. The appellant/wife had been earning since prior to the institution of the Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, 1955 which indicates her ability and capacity to earn.
7. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, MAT.APP. (F.C.) 143/2014 decided on 05.09.2016, wherein the maintenance was denied to the qualified wife, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court concluded that the appellant/wife was not entitled to any pendente lite maintenance. However, the respondent/husband was directed to bear the educational expenses and to reimburse the fee paid to IILM College of the daughter and to further continue to pay till she obtains the degree from the college, if not already obtained and the child becomes capable of supporting herself.
8. Aggrieved, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife.
9. Submissions heard.
10. Admittedly, the appellant/wife was working as one of the Directors in the Hotel Hill Height from where she was getting a sal
