Delhi District Court
Smt. Kiran Khurana Gulati vs Sh. Ankit Gulati (Husband) on 23 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CA No. 99/20
Smt. Kiran Khurana Gulati
W/o Sh. Ankit Gulati
D/o Sh. R.K. Khurana
R/o G2/12, Ganga Triveni Apartments,
Sector9, Rohini,
Delhi110085 ...Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Ankit Gulati (Husband)
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gulati
R/o UP49, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi110034
Also at: B141, First Floor,
Shivaji Vihar, New Delhi110027
2. Sh. Ved Prakash Gulati (fatherinlaw)
S/o late Sh. Kharati Lal
3. Smt. Anita Gulati (motherinlaw)
W/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gulati
4. Sh. Sahil Gulati (brotherinlaw)
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gulati
All R/o UP49, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi110034
CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 1 of 7
5. Sh. Chander Shekhar Gulati (husband's uncle)
S/o late Sh. Kharati Lal
R/o UP64, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi110034
6. Smt. Sunita Chugh (husband's bua)
W/o Sh. Ashok Chugh
R/o 4/279, Block4, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi110027
7. Sh. Arpit Chugh (husband's cousin)
W/o Sh. Ashok Chugh
R/o 4/279, Block4, Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi110027 ...Respondents
Date of institution : 29.10.2020
Date of reserving order : 23.12.2020
Date of pronouncement : 23.12.2020
Appearance through video conferencing:
Sh. Maharaj Singh Dedha, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Ajay Paul Markan, Ld. Counsel for respondents.
O R D E R:
Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present appeal under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the appellant assailing the impugned order dated 26.09.2020 passed by the court of Ms. Neha Mittal, Ld. MM/Mahila Court01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in complaint case no. 3198/19 titled as Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. whereby the interim CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 2 of 7 maintenance application of the appellant/complainant was dismissed on the grounds that appellant/complainant is educated and gainfully employed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between appellant Ms. Kiran Khurana Gulati and respondent no.1 Sh. Ankit Gulati was solemnized on 18.02.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the appellant had joined her husband (respondent no.1) and other respondents at the matrimonial home. It is alleged by the appellant that since the day of the marriage, the respondents had caused cruelty upon the appellant.
3. The respondents have filed reply to the appeal wherein it is averred that Ld. Trial Court has rightly disposed of the interim maintenance application of the complainant/appellant after considering the affidavits of Assets and Income filed by both the parties.
4. I have heard arguments on the appeal on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record. I have also perused the trial court record.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant for interim maintenance without considering the affidavits of assets and income filed by both the CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 3 of 7 parties. It is further argued that Ld. Trial Court has not even taken into account the position and status of the husband/respondent and also his admitted income while passing the impugned order.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the appellant has not filed on record any documentary evidence showing the income of the appellant, however, the bank statement filed by the appellant shows that the appellant has made false statement about her income. It is further argued that the complaint dated 30.01.2019 of the complainant/appellant clearly shows that the appellant was working on 30.01.2019 when she had allegedly left the matrimonial home and that it is not the case of the appellant that she has left the job after 30.01.2019.
7. After hearing arguments on behalf of the parties and after going through the record, I am of the opinion that Ld. MM has observed that the appellant/complainant has not denied the fact that she has relied upon the complaint dated 02.05.2019 made to ACP CAW Cell, PS Prashant Vihar as well as FIR No.36/19 PS Maurya Enclave, and that in Para 8 of the complaint dated 02.05.2019, complainant has stated that, "on 30.01.2019 when after coming back from my office". Ld. Trial Court has also observed that the complainant has very cleverly left column no.28 of her income affidavit blank in which the details of the bank account have to be furnished. Even during the course of CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 4 of 7 arguments, when Ld. Counsel for the appellant was specifically asked as to whether he has mentioned the bank account number and the details of last three years income, etc., he was not able to explain the same.
8. I have gone through the trial court record. In the Income Affidavit of the appellant, in column no.2(xxi) of PartVI (Statement of Assets), complete bank account details have not been mentioned. Though the names of two banks are mentioned but the bank account numbers and the current balance have not been mentioned in the Income Affidavit, which is mandatory as per the judgment of Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, FAO No. 369/1996 dated 06.12.2017.
9. It is, thus, clear that Ld. Magistrate has passed the order on the basis of the facts that the complainant has not provided the bank account details as are mandatory under law and which could have helped the Ld. MM to arrive at a decision as to whether the complainant is working or not. Moreso, since in her complaint dated 02.05.2019, complainant has herself stated that, "on 30.01.2019 when after coming back from my office", it points out that she is employed and working but has not disclosed true facts.
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that Ld. MM CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 5 of 7 has not considered the fact that the respondent/husband is running a business in the name of Sirijan Interior and is earning Rs.2 to 3 Lakhs apart from the rental income of Rs.1 Lakh. However, in my opinion, Ld. MM has only passed an order on application for interim maintenance keeping in view the present facts and circumstances which in itself explains that only as an interim relief, the matter was considered by Ld. MM and that the contentions raised by the parties are still to be decided on the touchstone of evidence which shall be led by both the respective parties before Ld. Trial Court. Admittedly, no issue was born from the wedlock of the parties. I am of the opinion that Ld. MM has rightly observed that the appellant herself is selfreliant. Therefore, at this stage, there is no ground to interfere with the order of Ld. Trial Court. However, it is clarified that in case of any change in circumstances and if the appellant/complainant puts forth any new facts or bank statements before Ld. Trial Court, they can be considered by Ld. Magistrate for grant of interim maintenance as per law.
11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.09.2020 of Ld. Trial Court. The same is, accordingly, upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
12. Nothing expressed herein shall tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the Ld. Judge will hear the matter as per CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 6 of 7 law without being guided by any observations made in this order.
13. Trial court record be sent back to Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced through video conferencing today i.e. 23rd December, 2020 (Swarana Kanta Sharma) Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi (sb) CA No. 99/20 Kiran Khurana Gulati v. Ankit Gulati & Ors. Page 7 of 7