Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Megha Mahajahan vs Rahul Gupta And Ors on 26 September, 2024

         IN THE COURT OF SHRI KUMAR RAJAT,
     ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
            KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.

CA No. 204/2023
MEGHA MAHAJAN VS. RAHUL GUPTA & ORS.
CNR No. DLSH01-006698-2023

                                   JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Megha Mahajan against the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court), Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which the respondent/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of child.

2. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent Rahul Gupta and they had married on 29.06.2018 and one son Avyaan was born on 23.06.2019. Since the inception of marriage, the respondent had misappropriated Stree-dhan and demanded dowry from the appellant and her parents and she was continuously subjected to acute domestic violence, harassment, physical, emotional and psychological torture and things did not change even after the birth of child and respondents continued with their demands of dowry and harassed the appellant. On 21.04.2021, respondents had beaten the appellant mercilessly to fulfill demands of dowry and when she could not give the dowry, she and her son were thrown out of the matrimonial house and were threatened not to return back and having no alternative, the appellant along with her 1 year and 9 month son came to her parental house.

Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:

RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:07:48 +0530

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that respondent no. 1 (husband) is law graduate (B.A.,LL.B.) and he is residing with his family at Raj Kishor Road, Civil Lines, Delhi in a 350 sq. yards house, having market value of Rs. 15-20 crores as said area is in the posh locality and it consists of four floors with basement and ground floor and the construction has been made on each floor. The basement is being used as godown/warehouse for shop supplies. Respondent no. 1 is running his hardware business with his father in the name of M/s.

Rati Ram Gupta Enterprises at Chawri Bazar, Delhi and the area of store is 30 sq. yards on ground floor and first floor and it is one of the prominent companies of the area, engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale trading of hardware, kitchenware and other fittings since 1943 and it is an ancestral shop inherited by father-in-law of appellant from his mother's father. Further, there is a godown in 503 A, Kucha Patiram, Delhi-06 in the name of husband and mother-in-law which is approximately 1,000 sq. ft. having market value of around 2 crores and they have two flats/properties at Kashmiri Gate and ancestral home at Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi.

4. It is further submitted that appellant filed a complaint case u/s 12 DV Act against the respondent and his family members on 06.08.2021 and on 09.11.2021 respondent no. 1 appeared before Ld. MM, who directed him to file WS and to file income affidavits pursuant to judgment of Rajnesh Vs. Neha. On 27.07.2022, appellant filed her income affidavit and respondent file his income affidavit, but he did not file his ITRs showing that his income was Rs. 10,000/- pm as claimed. On CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 2 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:08:55 +0530 20.10.2022, respondent filed his bank statements, but did not file details of past 3 years and on 22.03.2023, the appellant apprised the court that he had joint account with his mother, which was closed and respondent was directed to file the details of his joint account in ICICI Bank and though he filed the same, but he did not file latest bank statements despite directions from the court and the last entry was of 2021.

5. It is further submitted that on 26.07.2023, Ld. MM passed an order directing Rahul Gupta to pay Rs. 10,000/- pm towards interim maintenance of the child from the date of filing of petition till its disposal. Since the inception of marriage, the respondent had stated to the appellant that he had no money to bear his expenses and appellant had to pay a sum of Rs. 97,845/-

towards premium of PNB Metlife Insurance and the respondent is living a healthy and comfortable lifestyle and the entire school fees and other expenses of the child are being borne by the appellant out of her own earnings and the respondent is a law- graduate and living luxurious life.

6. It is further submitted that the respondent is duty bound to arrange for same standard of living, which appellant and her child were having in her matrimonial home before separation and the standard of living should be consistent with the status of family and the matrimonial home of the appellant is worth Rs. 20 crores and respondent transferred Rs. 9.50 lacs from his PNB account after marriage to show that he had no money and he was maintaining SBI bank account, which was purposely closed and entire amount of Rs. 34,27,686/- was transferred to the joint account of ICICI Bank by the respondent on 04.02.2021 CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 3 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:

2024.09.26 15:09:04 +0530 and it was withdrawn by his mother and respondent has filed false, frivolous and fabricated income and asset affidavit and he is duty bound to maintain his wife and child and he and his family members are owners of various movable and immovable properties at Civil Lines, Chawri Bazar, Kashmiri Gate and Sitaram Bazar and they are manipulating accounts and siphoning off the funds from one account to another and when the police complaint was filed against respondent and his family members, his father has falsely and fraudulently disowned the respondent and appellant of all the properties through newspaper publication and public notice was drafted through same advocate, who is representing respondent in each case and it was done to mislead the Court. Ld. MM failed to appreciate the above facts in its right perspective.

7. It is further submitted that Ld. MM also failed to appreciate that respondent has fabricated a lease deed that he is residing on rent of Rs. 3800/- only at Ghonda, Delhi, rather he is residing with his parents at Civil Lines, Delhi and he produced the false and fabricated documents regarding his work as Sales Executive as Shyam Sahara Hardware since 01.12.2020 on the salary of Rs. 10,000/- and the respondent was disowned by his father in May, 2021. Respondent is running Rati Ram Gupta Enterprises and he is owner of the said hardware store and there is apprehension that respondent may dispose of his movable or immovable property. The interim maintenance given by the Ld. Trial Court is insufficient to meet the expenses of child as there are expenses on the school fees of a public school, transportation, meals and other development and care of child and for that Rs. 1 CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 4 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:

2024.09.26 15:09:14 +0530 lac per month interim maintenance is required for child and Rs. 50,000/- towards the rent to the appellant as she is residing at her parental home.

8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also argued that she has filed an application for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal on the ground that the appellant received the free copy of order dated 26.07.2023 on 02.09.2023 and she was not keeping well and had to look after her 4 year old son, who required constant attention and thereafter, her parents were traveling abroad and came back on 18.10.2023 and she could not leave her son alone and she was unable to meet her lawyer to challenge the impugned order due to aforesaid reason and also she had to do her office work, which did not leave much time to her and she was not in a a position to take leave from office due to financial constraints and appellant has prayed for condonation of delay in the filing the present appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon following judgments:

(i) Farooq Ahmed Shala vs. Marie Chanel Gillier, Crl. Rev. P. 855/2018 &

(ii) Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353.

9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued qua application u/s 5 of Limitation Act that the affidavit in the present appeal was signed and attested on 14.10.2023 and filed on 26.10.2023 that is after unexplained delay of 12 days and she used to go to office once or twice a week and from 26.08.2023 to 25.10.2023, she used to go office as per his wish and no CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 5 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:09:23 +0530 sufficient cause of delay has been explained and all the contents of the application are denied and that appellant has mislead the Court by stating completely baseless and vague averments.

10. It is further argued that respondent denied the contentions in the appeal and that the appeal is not maintainable as appellant has concealed material facts that she was working as Senior Technical Head at Aristocrat and earning Rs. 1,31,782/-

i.e. much higher than respondent and she is also getting house and other allowances from her office and she is also doing part time job and marriage between them was very simple and respondent and his family members shows all love and affection to the appellant and cared for her and respondent provided comfortable life to the appellant within his financial limitation. After marriage she used to visit her parental home frequently and used to transfer/parcel expensive gifts i.e. jewelery, cash etc. to her parental home and on asking, she used to pick quarrel with respondent and appellant used to stay at her parental home for about 15-25 days at a time.

11. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that mother of respondent met with an accident on 12.07.2018, but the appellant did not care for her, despite her being in pain and forced respondent to go to Europe for honeymoon and despite request of respondent to postpone the same for one month, the appellant became adamant and respondent had to go to his honeymoon against his wish. Appellant used to talk to respondent badly and deserted him on several occasions and even did not sleep with him and she used to pick quarrel with him and his family members and behaved CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 6 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:

RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:09:34 +0530 rudely with them. She did not do any household chores and her family members instigated her on phone against the respondent and his family members and respondent and his family members tried to make her understand and believed that she was still love and affection of her parents and would get over it soon, but her behavior remained hostile towards respondent and his family members. The respondent is doing job as Sales Executive at Shyam Sahara Hardware, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, on a salary of Rs. 12,000/- pm and the father of respondent had severed all relations with him and he is residing on rent and is going through mental trauma because of the act of the appellant and he had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- to deposit before Hon'ble High Court for admission of his son and he is paying EMI of Rs. 2,000/- per month and he used to take appellant for dinner outside once a week.

12. It is also submitted that on 21.04.2021, appellant made a false call at 100 number against the respondent and his family members that her son was kidnapped by respondent and later, she changed her version in the PS and appellant herself had left her matrimonial home along with all the 'Stree-dhan' i.e. jewelry etc. and she is highly ambitious and wanted luxurious life and used to force respondent to bring more money from his parents and she demanded Rs. 1 lac as maintenance for child of 2.5 years only to fulfill her luxurious demands and deliberately changed the school of child within one year to claim more money from the respondent on account of fees. The respondent is not residing at Civil Lines, Delhi, rather he is residing on rent and the documents annexed with the appeal are false and fabricated to CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:09:44 +0530 extort money from respondent and as regards insurance of PNB Metlife, the respondent took policy in 2017 for the security of family and five installments were to be paid and one was paid by respondent in October, 2017, but due to marriage and honeymoon expenses, he could not pay in 2018 and appellant paid only second installment on the condition that she would be nominee in the Life Insurance Policy and that if any mis-happening occurs, she would get the entire ensured amount. Mother of the respondent started guardianship PPF Account under the name of respondent when he was minor, aged 6 years in 1993 and after opening the same, the amount was deposited by the mother of the respondent as a savings every year and after maturing of PPF Account, the amount was credited in respondent's bank, which was transferred to mother of the respondent as whole amount was deposited by her and she demanded the said amount of PPF and herself got transferred amount of Rs. 34,27,686/-, since it was the joint account and operated by her and the contention of transferring of amount from SBI to ICICI with malafide intention is not tenable.

13. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

14. The appellant is a working lady, who is also having the custody of her minor child, aged 5 years and she has to look after him as well as his study and other needs and her parents had gone abroad and that she has explained the delay that she had to look after her son as well as managed her office and she could not have taken the leave. Her submissions appears to be plausible and it is settled law that the Court has to take pragmatic approach CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 8 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:09:52 +0530 while deciding the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act, particularly during appellate jurisdiction in DV Act cases or cases concerning women and the Court is of the opinion that the contentions of the applicant/appellant in the appeal have to be decided on merits. Considering the same, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

15. The complaint u/s 12 of DV Act was filed by the appellant and maintenance of Rs. 1 lac for minor child and Rs. 50,000/- rent was sought by the appellant along with injunction from disposing of movable and immovable properties belonging to respondent no. 1. Similar relief was claimed in the application u/s 23 of DV Act for interim compensation of the said amount.

16. The appellant and the respondent Rahul Gupta were married on 29.06.2018 at Delhi and one child was born on 23.06.2019 out of the said wedlock. The parents of the appellant had spent Rs. 50 lacs in the marriage and Rs. 10 lacs was given in cash to the respondents and they had also given gold and diamond jewelry, costly cloths, valuable articles, articles of domestic use and Innova Crysta to Rahul Gupta as per his demand. The appellant had made the allegations of domestic violence against the respondent and his family members regarding the sarcastic remarks for not bringing enough dowry and that dowry was demanded time to time. It was also alleged that respondent used to beat her and his mother had taken all the jewelry on the pretext of keeping them safely. Her in-laws demanded Rs. 25 lacs from her and they abused her, which made her to leave the house at their instance and she had no other alternative, except to file the DV complaint.

Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:10:02 +0530

17. Both the parties have submitted their affidavits of assets income and expenditure in terms of judgment Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021 (2) SCC 324. The domestic relationship as defined u/s 2(f) of the DV Act exists between the appellant and the respondent and the same is also held by Ld. Trial Court and is not the point of dispute here. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned that the DIR prima facie shows that domestic violence was committed against the appellant.

18. The Ld. Trial Court has relied upon the judgment of Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde 140 (2007) DLT16 wherein the factors to be considered while dealing with the interim maintenance application are mentioned i.e. status of parties, reasonable wants of claimant, independent income and property of claimant, number of persons, the non-applicant must maintain, the amount should aid the applicant in similar life style as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, liability of non-applicant, provisions for food, clothing, treatment etc. of the applicant and payment capacity of non-applicant.

19. Admittedly the appellant is well-educated and has done MBA and B.Tech and she is working in the Aristocrat Technology Pvt. Ltd. Company, Noida, UP, having gross income of Rs. 15 lacs and monthly income of Rs. 1 lac pm. The same has been increased to Rs. 1,31,782/-. Now the husband has shown his income as Rs. 12,000/- pm with rental liability of Rs. 4200/- per month as per his reply.

20. In Rajnesh (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had also relied upon the above factors of Bharat Hegde (Supra) along with other factors and also relied upon Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Kamla CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2024.09.26 15:10:10 +0530 Devi, in which it was held that:

19. "The object of the provisions of maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living, which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments."

21. In Rajnesh (Supra), it was also held that issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleading where some amount of guess work on rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to the awarded. It is often seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his true income. Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to the parties to file their income, assets and liabilities and held that there is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

22. The Ld. Trial Court did not grant the interim maintenance to the appellant considering her income as well as the income of respondent. The Court concurs with the order of the Trial Court and does not find any illegality in the same on this aspect as the appellant is drawing a salary of Rs. 1,31,000/-

approx and the salary of the respondent on record is Rs. 12,000/-.

Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 15:10:19 2024.09.26 +0530

23. The child has been awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month.

The respondent claims himself to B.A.,LL.B. and he belongs to an affluent family having multistorey residence in the posh locality of Civil Lines, Delhi, worth about Rs. 20 crores. It is hard to believe, if such a well-educated lady having earnings of about Rs. 1 lac would marry a person having a meager salary of about Rs. 10-12,000/- pm in a private sector and there is no averment that it was love marriage and considering such huge gap of salary, it is apparent that the marriage was done as the respondent belonged to a rich family having family business in the main market of Chawri Bazar, Delhi for several years in the name of M/s. Rati Ram Gupta Enterprises, which is renowned firm of the area and also having godown in the said area. The respondent had not submitted his latest bank statement before the Ld. Trial Court and the last entry was of February, 2021. The respondent has also admitted in his affidavit that he has 1/3 rd share in the shop no. 502 & 503 and the same is being used as godown and it was purchased in the year 2019, which shows that the respondent was doing the established family business with his father and it is difficult to consider that respondent is doing the job in the nearby area despite having 1/3 rd share in the said godown, whose area is 58 sq. meters and thus, respondent is the owner of about 20 sq. meters as per his own admission.

24. It is admitted by the respondent in his reply that the money in the PPF account of the respondent was deposited by his mother since he was 6 years old and his account had Rs. 34,27,686/- which was transferred to the account of ICICI Bank and that it was transferred as the PPF account had matured and CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 12 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:

2024.09.26 15:10:28 +0530 the money belonged to his mother, but it was transferred on 04.02.2021 when the dispute arose, which creates doubt on the respondent and his family members as his contention was that his mother had demanded the said money and transferred the said amount since it was the joint account and operated by her. It is difficult to believe that a mother, who had deposited the said sum of money in the PPF account of her own child for his welfare, would ask him to return the same, when the respondent attained majority and the account had matured. The account was closed on 23.05.2022. In the PNB account of the respondent, there is not much credit shown after June, 2019 and his salary entries are made and the last entry was of 11.10.2022. It is the claim of the respondent that due to conduct of the appellant, his father had disowned him, but it cannot be said that in reality, they have severed all relations with him and it is also difficult to believe as to why the person from such a rich family would live in an area of Ghonda, Delhi in Trans Yamuna on rent. The respondent is working in the nearby shop of his family business, which shows that the documents pertaining to his salary may be made to mislead the Court and it will be determined by the Ld. Trial Court during the trial of the DV Act case, but prima facie it shows that the respondent has concealed his earnings. It is common practice that parents disown their children whenever any matrimonial issue arises between him and his wife to escape from the clutches of law though in reality they remain part of one family and help each other.

25. The child remains with the appellant and she is taking care of him and also bearing the expenses of school fees, CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 13 of 15 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:

2024.09.26 15:10:37 +0530 transport, extra curricular activities and other day to day needs and residing at her parental home, which is also in posh locality of the Trans Yamuna area. Both the parents are duty bound to maintain the child and if wife is also earning, she must also contribute towards the payment for the child's education etc. The respondent was maintaining a good lifestyle and admittedly he had taken the appellant to Europe for honeymoon, which is a very costly package and not easy for a common man to manage and only rich persons can manage such tours to Europe and used to take appellant for dinners. There is no doubt that the respondent has concealed his true income, but the same has to be countered with the actual requirement of the appellant. The appellant has claimed the amount of maintenance of Rs. 1 lac in both the regulation petition under DV Act as well as the interim petition. The interim maintenance in the absence of any definite income of the respondent cannot be granted in favour of appellant as much as demanded/prayed by her and adhering to the demand of similar maintenance in the interim application would tantamount to deciding the final compensation without any evidence being led in the trial Court, which may prejudice the respondent. As regards rent, the complainant/appellant has not produced any rent receipt and she may raise the said query before the Ld. Trial Court as and when she enters to any rent agreement or produce any rent receipt or gives any other proof of residing on rent and respondent has admitted that he has only one immovable property in his name i.e. 1/3 rd share of godown, so he is directed not to part with same till the pendency of DV Act or except with the permission of Ld. Trial Court.

Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:

RAJAT RAJAT 2024.09.26 15:10:46 +0530

26. The appellant has prayed for maintenance of Rs. 1 lac to the minor child and the child is aged about 5 years and such a huge claim for child of 5 years, where specific income of the respondent is not specified, appears to be on the higher side at this stage, though the appellant has filed the fee receipts etc. and changed his school. The expenses of child have increased and as such there has to be some hike in the maintenance from the one granted by the Ld. Trial Court.

27. Considering the above facts and that both the earning parents have joint liability towards the child, the respondent no. 1 is directed to pay monthly expenses of Rs. 25,000/- pm towards the interim maintenance of child from the date of filing of revision till the pendency of proceedings under DV Act, till the same is further revised by Ld. Trial Court.

28. The present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of on the above terms and conditions and the respondent is directed to clear the arrears within 30 days.

29. Nothing mentioned herein shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case.

Copy of judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court with TCR and be uploaded on the website.

The appeal file be consigned to Record Room after Digitally signed necessary compliance. KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2024.09.26 15:10:59 +0530 (Kumar Rajat) ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi 26.09.2024 CA. No. 204/2023 Megha Mahajan Vs. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Page 15 of 15