Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Amit Dhiman - Appellant
Versus
Boski Dhiman - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 368 of 2020 & Crl.M.As. 16269-16270 of 2020
Decided On : 25-11-2020
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Maintenance
Act Referred
FAMILY COURTS ACT: S.19
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT: S.24
SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT: S.36
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The parties were married and have been living separately since 2015. The respondent applied for interim maintenance claiming she was unemployed and dependent. The petitioner, employed and claiming lower income, contested the maintenance order asserting the respondent's capability of earning.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the absence of evidence regarding the respondent’s ability to earn, thereby affirming the Family Court's decision without grounds for interference regarding interim maintenance.
Issues: The main issues centered on the criteria for maintaining interim maintenance amid disputes over financial status and employment capability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that being capable of earning does not diminish a spouse's entitlement to maintenance, particularly where evidence of actual earning is absent. Financial support must reflect the familial living standard prior to marital separation.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for interim maintenance filed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on qualifications and financial dependency. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. courts analyze maintenance based on income and dependency. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. interim maintenance order stands; dependency proven. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. revision petition dismissed. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The present revision petition has been instituted under Section 19 (4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi in Maintenance Petition No. 878/2017 titled as "Boski Dhiman Vs. Amit Dhiman".
Vide the impugned order, the Family Court has granted interim maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the petition.
2. It was stated that at the time of filing of the application, the respondent was unemployed and having no source of income and was completely dependent on her parents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order shows complete non-application of mind. It is also contended that the respondent is highly qualified and capable of earning. In this regard, he has referred to the bank statements showing financial transactions. Lastly, it is contended that while awarding the interim maintenance, the Family Court did not note the fact that the petitioner's widowed grand-mother is dependent on him.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings.
5. The parties got married to each other on 10.02.2008. As per the impugned order, the parties have stopped living together since 26.09.2015. The parties filed their income affidavits before the Family Court. The respondent had asked for interim maintenance @ Rs.1,50,000/- pm along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was stated that the petitioner is running his own company in the name and style of M/s Amedeon Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and was earning more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Besides, it was also stated that the petitioner was earning from other investments.
6. In the reply filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, the petitioner stated his professional qualification as Masters in IT, B.Sc. and declared his income to be Rs.1,02,582/-. The petitioner admitted that he was running his own company in the name of M/s Amedeon Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., however, he denied the earning more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month. It was also stated that he regularly paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent w.e.f. 26.09.2015 when she left the matrimonial home voluntarily, up till October, 2017 and thereafter an amount of Rs.10,000/- was also paid to her. It was also stated that the respondent being an MCA was highly educated and was earning.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to various bank statements of the respondent to highlight the financial transactions. However, a perusal of the same would show that the aforesaid bank statement is from the year 2015 to 03.02.2017, whereas the application seeking interim maintenance has been filed in the month of July, 2017. In the income affidavit filed by the petitioner, he admitted his monthly income at about Rs.1,02,582/-.
8. In Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra reported as 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, it was held as follows:
"2. In other words the court must first arrive at the net disposable income of the Husband or the dominant earning spouse. If the other spouse is also working these earnings must be kept in mind. This would constitute the Family Resource Cake which would then be cut up and distributed amongst the members of the family. The apportionment of the cake must be in consonance with the financial requirements of the family members, which is exactly what happens when the sp
