Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
G.S. Sistani, J.
Jayant Bhargava —Petitioner
versus
Priya Bhargava —Respondent
CM(M) 98 of 2011
Decided on 1.4.2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. Saurabh Kansal and Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Vinod Kumar and Ms. Deepayan Monda, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
An Indian woman has been given equal status under Articles 14 and 16 of constitution and she has a right to live in dignity and according to status of her husband.
Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 24—Maintenance pendente lite—Spouses in proceedings for maintenance not correctly disclosed their true income—Some guess work on part of Court permissible—Court can take into consideration amongst other following factors—Life style of spouse—Amount spent at time of marriage and manner in which marriage was performed— Destination of honeymoon—Ownership of motor vehicles— Household facilities—Facility of drivers, cook and other help— Credit cards—Bank account details—Club membership—Amount of Insurance premium paid—Property or properties purchased—Rental income—Amount of rent paid—Amount spent on travel/Holiday—Locality of residence;-Number of mobile phones—Qualification of spouse—School(s) where child or children studying when parties were residing together—Capacity to repay loan—These some factors, may be considered by Court in guesstimating income of a spouse. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
G.S. Sistani, J.—Present petition is directed against the order 13.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application filed by respondent (wife) under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, by virtue of which, petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000 per month, to the respondent.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding maintenance @ Rs.10,000, per month to the respondent. Counsel further submits that the respondent has misled the court with regard to income of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs.30,000 per month. It is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as a Sales Supervisor with M/s. Kishan Lal Enterprises and is getting a monthly salary of Rs.6,200. Counsel also submits that learned trial court fell into error by ignoring the proof regarding income of the petitioner apart from the appointment letter and salary slip of the petitioner which was placed on record.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a mere graduate and is still pursuing his MBA through distance learning in order to become a helping hand to his family and take care of his parents and two sisters who are of marriageable age and who are dependent on him. It is next submitted that trial court has failed to take into consideration that petitioner has to look after his parents and help in settling his two sisters. It is also submitted that trial court has also ignored the fact that respondent is capable of earning as she has done a course in interior designing. It is next submitted that the respondent is residing with her parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged before this court that trial court has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner to be around Rs.30,000, per month, while there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for arriving at this incorrect figure.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Counsel further submits that trial court has passed the impugned order based on correct appreciation of facts and has correctly applied the law to the facts of the case. Counsel also submits that respondent is entitled to enjoy the same status as she was enjoying in her matrimonial home. Counsel next submits that the parents of the respondent had spent a large amount on the marriage of the respondent, which is evident from the fact that besides a Honda City Car various other valuable gifts were given at the time of marriage of the respondent to the petitioner and his family.
6. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that it would not be expected that the parents of the respondent would marry the respondent to a person, who is barely earning the minimum wages and in turn would spend lavishly on the marriage. It is further submitted that petitioner has willfully concealed the material documents from the trial court, which has forced the trial court into guessing the income of the petitioner, which the trial court was entitled to do in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. It is also submitted that petitioner has not come to court with clean hands. It is next submitted that an application under Order 10, Rule 2 read with Rules 12 and 14 CPC was filed by the respondent before the trial court to direct the petitioner to place documents on record for the correct assessment of the income of the petitioner, however, as noticed by the trial court in para 15 of the impugned order no reply was filed to this application nor the necessary documents were filed. It is next submitted that in view of the conduct of the appellant the trial court has correctly drawn an adverse inference with regard to the allegations made by the respondent. It is next s
