Delhi High Court - Orders
Aneesh Gupta vs Deepika Gupta on 26 July, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 65/2021
ANEESH GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Liza
Baruah and Ms. Shreya Singhal,
Advocates with appellant in person.
versus
DEEPIKA GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Seema Seth, Advocate and
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 26.07.2021 CM No. 22017/2021
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 65/2021 & CM No. 22016/2021
3. The appellant/ husband has assailed the order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the Family Court in an application filed by the appellant to seek modification of the earlier order granting pendente lite maintenance to the respondent for herself and the minor child who is in the custody of the respondent.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.07.2021 16:364. In the earlier round, the maintenance had been fixed by the Family Court at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- each for the respondent and the minor child vide order dated 28.02.2017.
5. Being dissatisfied with that order, the respondent/ wife preferred an appeal before this Court. That appeal, being MAT APPL. (FC) 56/2017, was decided by this Court on 30.10.2018. After hearing the counsels, this Court directed as follows:
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon broad calculation as provided by the learned counsels and applying the law laid down in the case of Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra, reported in 2004 (74) DRJ 99, we assessed the income of the husband and it is agreed that the order of the Family Court be modified and the maintenance be fixed as Rs.65,000/- per month with effect from 28.02.2017."
6. At that stage, it was informed to the Court by the appellant that on account of change in circumstances, he has made an application before the Family Court for modification of the impugned order. He stated that the appellant has lost his job and he sought to pay the arrears in easy instalments and that his application for modification be heard expeditiously.
7. This Court granted six months time to the appellant to clear the arrears and also directed that the application for modification be heard early. By the impugned order, that application for modification has been decided by the Family Court.
8. It was claimed by the appellant before the Family Court that on account of the communication issued by the respondent to the appellant's employer, i.e. McKinsey & Company, he had to resign from the said job and, therefore, he was not able to pay the maintenance as awarded by this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.07.2021 16:36 Court in the appellate proceedings. The materials placed before the Family Court by both sides were considered and the Family Court disbelieved the stand taken by the appellant that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.30,000 since the year 2019 from the M/s Clock Soft Solution Limited. The discussion in the impugned order in relation to the appellant's income - as found in paragraph 16, reads as follows:
"16. The various contentions raised by petitioner regarding his employment and income are shrouded in mystery and it appears petitioner has tried to conceal his actual income. Admittedly by petitioner he worked with M/s Mc Kinsey and Company till February, 2017 on a net salary of Rs. 1,30,000/- but thereafter as per his HDFC bank account in the assessment year 2019-20 petitioner has received around Rs. 22 Lacs from M/s McKinsey and Company. Petitioner has submitted that this amount was due to him on account of his employment till February, 2017 on a various counts but was paid subsequently by M/s Mc Kinsey and Company. It is fact of common knowledge that McKinsey and Company is a global management consulting firm. Why the company paid so huge dues to petitioner subsequently after long period of time when allegedly petitioner left the job. This fact required to be looked into at depth and this stage create shadow of doubt on the version of petitioner. Similarly loaning of Rs. 8 Lacs by petitioner to M/s Clock Soft Solutions Ltd. with which he claims to be working as employee w.e.f. February, 2019 on a meager salary of Rs. 30,000/- is also appears to be doubtful. Similarly as pointed out by Ld. Sr. Counsel for respondent, Mr. Suvradipta Banerjee is director of M/s. Mavensworls Training and Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. and various emails filed on record by petitionter between him and M/s McKinsey and Company show Mr. Suvradipta Banerjee as employee of M/s McKinsey and Company. Is this just a coincident or an attempt to conceal his exact income by the petitioner, at this stage it is not possible to conclude and same needs to be revealed? It is a case under HMA and the parties will not get opportunity to bring evidence to prove income of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.07.2021 16:36 opposite party on record. Under these circumstances, it was the responsibility of petitioner to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove his point. No doubt Covid has affected all sectors of economy, including businesses, professionals, employee etc. but it is hard to believe that a person like petitioner who claims to be professionally qualified (B.E. Mechanical, M. Tech. Tool design & manufacturing) and getting huge remuneration from McKinsey and Company during his service tenure either his employment again in February, 2019 onwards on a meager salary of around Rs. 30,000/- per month. Moreover, as pointed by Ld. Sr. Counsel for respondent there is transfer of unexplained amount in the accounts of petitioner to his parents, when father of the petitioner is stated to be pensioner, investment of good amount in mutual funds and huge withdrawals from account. The statement of account of Yes Bank filed on record by the petitioner show term deposits of Rs. 17,08,884/- in June, 2018 and term deposit of Rs. 2,80,924/- in February ,2019."
9. The submission of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant is that while passing its order dated 30.10.2018, this Court had not taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had lost his job with McKinsey & Company. The appellant was permitted to pursue his application for modification on that ground as well.
10. Having read the order passed by the Division Bench in that MAT.APP.(FC) No.56/2017 dated 30.10.2018, we cannot agree with the submission of the appellant. The Division Bench expressly took note of the submission of the appellant that he had lost his job with McKinsey & Company. While passing the impugned order, the Family Court disbelieved the claim of the appellant that he was drawing a paltry amount of Rs.30,000/- towards salary since February 2019 and, in our view, rightly so. There is absolutely no explanation placed forth by the appellant to explain Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.07.2021 16:36 facts and circumstances taken note of in the impugned order - as extracted hereinabove. Consequently, the modification sought by the appellant on the ground of reduction of his salary/income was rightly not entertained.
11. The next submission of Mr. Banerjee is that another ground taken by the appellant was with regard to the respondent's income. He submits that the respondent was carrying out the business of selling items online, and for this, he sought to produce credit entries in the account of the respondent from several E-Commerce sites such as Flipkart, Jabong, etc. The explanation furnished by the respondent was that those were refund entries in respect of items which were returned by the respondent to those E- Commerce Sites.
12. Mr. Banerjee states that respondent had produced documents only in respect of 7 to 8 entries to establish refund, whereas there were about 250 credit entries into the account of the respondent from the said E-commerce websites.
13. He further submits that respondent had not produced the Income Tax Returns on the ground that she was not filing them, and she had also not placed before the Family Court the account statements of all her accounts maintained in several banks, including ICICI Bank, Paschim Vihar.
14. Limited to examination of the aspect with regard to the respondent's income, we issue notice. Ms. Seema Seth appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
15. We direct the respondent to file an affidavit making full and complete disclosure of all her income and bank accounts held by her - either singly, or in joint names with any other person, either as a primary holder, or secondary holder. She shall also file all the account statements of all the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.07.2021 16:36 debit cards/ credit cards held by her. She shall also file the copies of her Income Tax Returns for the last 3 years with copies to the appellant, within two weeks, who may file his response within two weeks thereafter.
16. Mr. Mittal states that the arrears amounting to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-, have not been paid by the appellant. The appellant is directed to clear the arrears in instalments of Rs.3,00,000/- per month, and to continue to pay the current maintenance - as awarded, till further orders punctually, without any default. The payment made towards maintenance would be subject to adjustment, if any, found to be due by the Court subsequently.
17. In case the appellant does not comply with this order, the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
18. List on 20.09.2021.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 26, 2021 aks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.07.2021 16:36