Delhi High Court
Sh. Shailesh Gupta vs Smt. Renu on 12 December, 2011
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 1431/2011 & CM Nos.22315-16/2011
Judgment delivered on: 12th December, 2011
SH. SHAILESH GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rama Shanker with
Mr. Rakesh Mehta, Advocates.
versus
SMT. RENU ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
*
1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 5.10.2011 whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent.
CM (M) No. 1431/2011 Page 1 of 5
2. Assailing the said order, Mr. Rama Shannker, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that except earning an amount of Rs. 4,000/- from the rental income, the petitioner has no other source of income. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is not even Xth standard pass and has no technical knowledge or experience in any field while on the other hand the respondent is well educated lady besides having expertise in the field of event management. Counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that after separation of the parties the business of event management, which was being jointly run by both the parties was completely closed down and since then the petitioner is effectively unemployed. Based on these submissions counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no financial resources to pay such an exorbitant amount of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the records.
4. The learned Trial Court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner after taking into consideration the status of the parties, the life style being enjoyed by them in the matrimonial home CM (M) No. 1431/2011 Page 2 of 5 and the paying capacity of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court also took into consideration the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs spent by the petitioner towards the construction of two floors in the house besides his admission of having rental income of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The learned Trial Court in the impugned order also observed that the petitioner has made a concerted effort to conceal his true income from the Court and in such circumstances adverse inference has to be drawn against him.
5. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has not truthfully come forward to disclose his correct income either before this Court or before the learned Trial Court. From a perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner to Section 24 application it is clear that nowhere the petitioner has disclosed as to what was his source of income and how was he sustaining himself. Even the rental income has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the reply. In para 7 of the application filed by the respondent, she has alleged that the petitioner is man of means and high status and is earning Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- per month out of which Rs. 36,000/- is rental income earned by letting out the premises bearing No. 373, Chandiwali Street, Paharganj. The respondent in her application has further alleged that the petitioner is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing a job in Focus television as CM (M) No. 1431/2011 Page 3 of 5 car driver and around Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing the business of event management. Except the bald denial of the said averments in reply to para 7, the petitioner nowhere in his entire reply has disclosed his source of income. The respondent even has falsely stated in reply to para 7 of the said application that he has no rental income. Undeniably, it is a fact that the wives in their interim maintenance application come forward with inflated and exaggerated income figures of their husbands, but in the absence of any convincing proof furnished by the wives, no reliance can be placed by the Court on such inflated figures. Nevertheless it is for the earning spouse to satisfy the Court with regard to his correct income through his truthful disclosures and with the help of some documentary evidence wherever possible. In most of such cases to evade their liability from paying the legitimate amount of maintenance to their wives, the husbands more often than not do not disclose their true and correct income. The Courts have consistently taken a view that in all such cases, the only option left is to undertake some guess work looking into all other factors to ascertain the income of the husband. In the facts of the present case also the appellant has brazenly suppressed his correct income from the Court and even has suppressed his rental income in his reply filed by him to application under Section 24. The CM (M) No. 1431/2011 Page 4 of 5 petitioner has not placed on record any material to persuade this court that he does not have the means to pay the said amount awarded by the learned trial court to the respondent wife. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the interim maintenance of his wife, the respondent herein taking into account all the relevant factors.
6. In the light of the above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR,J DECEMBER 12, 2011 rkr CM (M) No. 1431/2011 Page 5 of 5