Delhi District Court
Shri Praveen Rana vs Smt. Anu on 17 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAM PRAKASH PANDEY
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.143/19
SHRI PRAVEEN RANA
S/O SH. UDAY BHAN
R/O V&P QUTABGARH, RANA PANA,
DELHI110039 ... APPELLANT
vs.
SMT. ANU
W/O SH. PRAVEEN RANA
D/O SH. TEJVEER SINGH
R/O FLAT NO. 455, GH3,
SAI NATH APARTMENT,
SECTOR28, ROHINI, DELHI ......RESPONDENT
Date of institution of appeal :30.11.2018
Date when reserved for orders :10.10.2019
Date of judgment :17.10.2019
Appearance: Sh. Sahil Malik, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for
the Appellant.
Sh.Ravinder Mann, Advocate, Ld. Counsel
for the Respondent.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE PROTECTION OF
WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of an appeal filed by the appellant Shri Praveen Rana under Section 29 of the CA No.143/2019 Page No.1 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) seeking setting aside the order dated 02.11.2018 by Ld. MMNorth (Mahila Court) in complaint case No. 101/2/16 in short impugned order) titled as '"Anu vs Praveen Rana & Others' awarding interim maintenance in favour of the respondent at the rate of Rs.15,000/ per month.
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
i) that the impugned order is based upon conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts on record;
ii) that the trial court failed to appreciate that not an iota of Domestic Violence seemed or proved by the respondent and on the contrary, there are prima facie evidence of perjury against the respondent u/s 340 CrPC for suppressing the true fact before the trial court;
iii) that the trial court erroneously passed the impugned order thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 15000/ per month to the respondent and child w.e.f. filing the petition without considering the income and liability of appellant;
iv) that the trial court failed to appreciate that the monthly income of appellant is Rs. 21973/ and is working as TTE in Indian Railways;
v) that the trial court failed to appreciate that as per income affidavit of respondent, she is spending Rs.30000/ per month and she is allegedly not doing any job, then how such a huge expenditure is borne by CA No.143/2019 Page No.2 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu her;
vi) that the trial court failed to appreciate that respondent is also a professional wrestler and is also earning from State Level Competitions of wrestling;
vii) that the trial court failed to appreciate that the appellant already filed the documents to show that respondent was married twice and also received sufficient alimony from previous husbands and the respondent misled the trial court and had deliberately not disclosed that she was married twice prior to getting married with appellant;
viii) that the trial court failed to appreciate that respondent left the society of appellant without any reasonable cause;
ix) that the trial court failed to appreciate that webpages documents procured from internet filed by respondent could not be looked into as their authenticity was not proved by respondent in accordance with law;
x) that the trial court wrongly assumed monthly salary of appellant as Rs. 40000/ to Rs. 50000/ per month without their being any substantive proof of the same;
xi) that the trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself is guilty of maltreatment and harassment against the appellants and as such, she did not require any assistance of the court in any manner and respondent has misused her status and got a favourable order without any base and substance;
xii) that the trial court failed to appreciate that the intention of respondent is to hatch huge amount from the appellant in one way or the other thereby torturing CA No.143/2019 Page No.3 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu and humiliating the appellant ans his family members and to teach a lesson to them.
xiii) that the trial court failed to appreciate that respondent concealed material facts and misled the court and obtained the impugned order;
xiv) that the trial court failed to appreciate that there is no sufficient/cogent ground to direct the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs. 15000/ per month and that too from the date of filing of the petition;
3. In view of the above submissions, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 02.11.2018 of trial court be set aside
4. The appeal has been contested on behalf of the respondent. However, she has chosen not to file any reply to the appeal and orally contested the appeal. It is claimed on her behalf that it is abuse of process of law and a tactic to cover up the lapses on the part of the appellant. It is also claimed that the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order while appreciating all the facts, law and evidence available on record. It is claimed that there is no illegality in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties at bar and have extensively gone through the entire material on record including the trial court record.
CA No.143/2019 Page No.4 of 10Praveen Rana vs. Anu
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant in compliance of the order dated 30.09.2019 has placed on record a bankers's cheque bearing No.340589 dated 04.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.3 Lacs drawn on Punjab National Bank, Qutabgarh, Delhi110039.
7. The record reveals that admittedly, the parties got married at Delhi on 08.01.2016. It is also not disputed that a female child was born out of this wedlock on 14.09.2016 after filing of the present petition, although the appellant has disputed the paternity of the child before ld. MM, it is not agitated while filing the instant appeal. It is, also, an admitted fact on record that the Respondent is not staying with the appellant in the matrimonial house or anywhere else. The appellant himself has not disputed that he has not made any provision for the maintenance of the respondent and the minor child. The controversy as to whether the respondent has been thrown out of the matrimonial house by the appellant or whether she herself has treated the appellant and his family members with cruelty and left the matrimonial home of her own wish, can be decided only after the parties lead their respective evidence during the trial. The grant of maintenance, however, cannot be postponed till the decision of the said controversy.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has raised contention that the respondent was married twice prior to getting married with the appellant and she has got sufficient alimony from her CA No.143/2019 Page No.5 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu erstwhile husbands. However, the appellant has failed to substantiate as to whether the respondent is in fact still having amount of any alimony or maintenance or earning any money by investing the same. The said pleas can be substantiated during the trial of the case.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has claimed that appellant has been working in the Indian Railways as TTE under sports quota and has been earning only a sum of Rs. 21973/ per month and the trial court wrongly assumed his monthly income as Rs. 40000/ to Rs.50000/ and has erroneously passed the impugned order for paying maintenance of Rs. 15000/ per month from the date of filing of petition. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that respondent herself is a professional wrestler and has been earning from State Level Competitions of Wrestling.
10. The record reveals that the appellant has not placed on record any documentary or other evidence to the effect that the respondent is having any source of income. On the other hand, it is admitted that the appellant is working as TTE in Indian Railways and as per his salary slip of April 2018, his net income after deductions comes to Rs. 27,389/ per month. He has no other liability to except to maintain the respondent and the minor child as his father is retired government servant and is getting pension. The appellant has filed his ITRs for the last two years. The ITR for the assessment year 201617 shows that appellant CA No.143/2019 Page No.6 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu has gross income of Rs. 10,92,701/ whereas ITR for the assessment year 201718 shows that he has gross income of Rs. 335609/.
11. The respondent placed on record some copy of webpages which shows that the appellant was involved in international franchise in Wrestling Leagues and is having handsome income and also reflects that appellant is a renowned wrestler. During the course of arguments in the instant appeal, ld. Counsel for the appellant has admitted that appellant used to participate in the wrestling leagues whenever any opportunity came to him and was having some income therefrom and the income shown in the ITR of 201617 was the result of such opportunity. The contention of ld. Counsel for the appellant that web pages cannot be looked into (by placing reliance on Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Bashir, AIR 2015 SC 180) as there is no authenticity of the documents, holds no merits in view of the aforesaid admission made on behalf of the appellants that he is a renowned wrestler and used to participate in the wrestling leagues and is having extra income. The appellant has thus evaded to disclose his true source of income just to defeat the rights/claims of the respondent and in such circumstances, the trial court had no other option but had to resort to guess work for assessing the income of the appellant. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the appellant received income from international franchise in Wrestling League uptil year 201516 only, may be correct but his statement of the State Bank of India shows some extradeposits CA No.143/2019 Page No.7 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu in the years 2018 and 2019 which are over and above salary income which is unexplained. These facts have to be tested when the parties lead evidence but at the stage of granting interim maintenance, it may not be possible for the courts to determine the income of the husband with mathematical precision.
12. In "Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 7", it is held that "considering the diverse claims made by the parties, one inflating the income and the other suppressing, an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision." In the aforesaid case, it is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "status of the parties and mode of life the wife used to live and the capacity of the husband, further allowing his own expenses should be considered by the court and the attempt of the husband to conceal his income would justify an adverse inference about his income." The ld. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Baby Rashmi Mehra and Another vs Sunil Mehra and Others, AIR 1991 Delhi 44 wherein it was held that the quantum of maintenance depends upon the position and status of the parties including financial position of the husband. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon judgment of Saraswati vs Madhuvan, AIR 1961 Kerala 297 to the effect CA No.143/2019 Page No.8 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu that a well educated lady is not entitled to claim maintenance unless she proves otherwise.
13. In the case of "Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha, AIR 2015 SC 554", it was opined by the Apex Court, "in our considered view, merely because the appellantwife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. .... In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance." Hence, in the absence of any supporting document with regard to alleged employment of the respondent, the court does not find any reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the respondent regarding her inability to maintain herself being unemployed.
14. The trial court has assessed the income of the appellant around Rs. 40000/ to Rs.50000/ per month. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and documents of income placed on record, even a conservative estimate of the income of the appellant would suggest that his income is atleast Rs. 30000/ per month, however, final assessment of his income will have to be arrived at on the basis of evidence which may ultimately be led in the trial for grant of maintenance finally.
15. As per "Anurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra, 110 (2004) DLT 546", the family cake is to be divided into three parts: two shares to be kept by appellant being the earning spouse and one for the respondent for herself and one for the CA No.143/2019 Page No.9 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu child in her custody. Therefore, keeping in view the status of the parties and their respective wants and needs, the trial court has rightly fixed the interim maintenance of the respondent alongwith the minor child at Rs. 15,000/ p.m. from the date of filing of the petition.
16. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
17. The demand draft of Rs. 3,00,000/ dated 04.10.2019 drawn on Punjab National Bank as deposited by the appellant which is lying on court record be released in favour of the respondent which shall be liable to be adjusted against the arrears of maintenance.
18. It is clarified that nothing said herein shall tantamount to the expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
19. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this judgment and appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by RAM RAM PRAKASH PRAKASH PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2019.10.19 10:15:58 +0530 Announced in the open (R.P. Pandey) Court on 17.10.2019 District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi CA No.143/2019 Page No.10 of 10 Praveen Rana vs. Anu