IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters.
(2) An unmarried daughter, even if employed and earning, cannot be assumed to have sufficient resources to meet her matrimonial expenses.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.—The present appeal has been filed under Section 28(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2020 passed by the Family Court (West) in the matter of Poonam Sethi Vs. Sanjay Sethi in HMA No. 39/2017. In the impugned judgment, the Family Court has allowed the petition filed by the Appellant wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and has dissolved the marriage between the parties. However, the Appellant is aggrieved by the non-grant of maintenance allowance for herself and the two major daughters of the parties.

2. The Appellant has filed the present appeal seeking the following substantial the following prayer:—

“(A) Set aside the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 28th November 2020, passed by the Ld. Judge, Family Court (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi, in the matter of “Poonam Sethi v. Sanjay Sethi”, bearing No. HMA 39/17 (Original Number being 1769/2014) to the extent that the same holds that (a) the Appellant (wife) is not entitled to any maintenance (u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955) or Permanent Alimony (u/s. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955) for herself; (b) the Appellant (wife) is not entitled to any maintenance allowance for the two major daughters of the parties in the proceedings before the Ld. Family Court and; (c) to the extent that the same dismisses the Application for Temporary Injunction dated 30.10.2019 filed by the Appellant;

(B) Grant the consequential relief of Maintenance and Permanent Alimony to the Appellant as prayed for in the Applications filed before the Ld. Family Court;

(C) Pass any such and other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

3. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as under.

4. The Appellant got married to the Respondent on 11.10.1986 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Since marriage, the Appellant was residing with the Respondent at First Floor, F-90 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Out of the wedlock, 3 children were born, namely Sahiba (DOB-03.11.1987), Ananya (DOB- 28.08.1994) and Atharv (DOB-11.07.1997). The eldest daughter Sahiba is currently working in London after completing her graduation in Fashion Journalism from London. The other children, namely, daughter Ananya and son Atharv are in Appellant’s sole care and custody.

5. It is the case of the Appellant that for the past 9 - 10 years, all 3 children were brought up by the Appellant single handedly, including taking care of their food, clothes, education, tuitions, travelling, extracurricular activities, entertainment, sports, medical needs etc. without any contribution from the Respondent.

6. It is the case of the Appellant that owing to the abdication of duties by the Respondent since the year 2010, the Appellant started crumbling under the financial burden of supporting their 3 children all on her own, without any financial relief for such a long period.

7. It is in this background, that the Appellant filed an application for maintenance pendente lite on 19.03.2015 under Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for herself and her minor son. The Appellant also filed a detailed income affidavit along with the relevant documents. After the judgment of Kusum Sharma vs. Mahender Sharma,the Appellant again filed a detailed income affidavit on 11.12.2015, along with supporting documents including bank statements and invoices.

8. In the year 2016, Respondent also filed an income affidavit stating that he is unemployed and has no income. On 21.02.2017, the Appellant filed another application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for urgent directions to the Respondent to pay to the Appellant, an amount commensurate with his income. As per the Appellant, the Family Court was of the opinion, that i