Delhi District Court
Shweta Mehta vs Kunal Kapoor on 8 October, 2024
Object 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA, SPECIAL
JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI.
Crl. Appeal no. 191/23
Shweta
W/o Kunal Kapoor
D/o Sh. Kishan Mehta
R/o Rohini Flat No. 7, Neelgiri Apartment
Sector-9, Rajapur Kalan, North West
Delhi.
Presently at :
H. No. 35, PU Block
Ground Floor, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
.......... Appellant
VS
Kunal
R/o 1142, First Floor, Sector-15
Part-2, Gurugram
Haryana.
.........Respondent
Date of Institution : 25.08.2023
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 21.09.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 08.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of this appeal preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 passed by Ld. MM, North, Rohini Courts, whereby an application under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act for grant of interim maintenance filed by the appellant was dismissed in complaint case no. 548/22 titled as Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.08 Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor 17:12:08 +0530 CA No. 191/23 Page 1/ 16
2. For the sake of convenience, appellant would be referred as complainant as per her nomenclature before the trial court.
3. Brief facts are that marriage between the complainant and respondent was solemnized on 14.02.2021 and in all the functions such as Roka, Sagai and marriage, parents of the complainant spent their hard earned money beyond their financial capacity and gave valuable gifts, clothes, cash, jewellery as well as electronic items to the family members, relatives as well as to the complainant in the marriage. The parents of the complainant spent around Rs. 95 lacs in her marriage.
3.1 After marriage, complainant accompanied the petitioner to her matrimonial house at House no. 1142, First Floor, Sector-15, Part-2, Gurugram, Haryana. But the complainant was subjected to mental torture by respondent Kunal Kapoor and his family members (respondent no. 1 to 4 before Ld. Trial Court) as they were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in the marriage. The respondents taunted the complainant for bringing insufficient dowry and they also told her that her father should have given an Audi car in the marriage.
3.2 When the complainant went to her parental home after marriage, respondent Kunal Kapoor called her and asked her to come back to the matrimonial home with cash of Rs. 20 lacs and an Audi car. Respondent Kunal Kapoor told the complainant that if Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date: 2024.10.08 Page 2/ 16 17:12:19 +0530 CA No. 191/23 she cannot bring the said articles, she would stay at her parental home forever. When the complainant went to her matrimonial home without taking the demanded articles, the respondent no. 1, 2, 3 quarreled with her and sent her back to her parental home by stating that in case of non fulfillment of their demands, they would not allow the complainant to say at her matrimonial home.
3.3 The marriage of the complainant and respondent was an arranged marriage and both the families were introduced through the Aunt (massi) of the petitioner Rita Malhotra. Prior to marriage, several meetings were arranged between both the families and it was made clear to the respondent side that parents of the complainant would not be able to fulfill the demands in the marriage. The parents of the complainant also told the respondents that the complainant should be allowed to continue her job after marriage. At that time, respondent side denied of any demand in marriage and also gave the permission to the complainant to continue her job after marriage.
3.4 On 7.11.2020, function of ring ceremony of complainant and respondent was held and after that function, respondent Kunal Kapoor asked the complainant to tell her father to give two cars in marriage i.e. one for respondent and another for the complainant as the mode of conveyance for her job. Other respondents also demanded specific furniture, gold and diamond jewellery for their family members and relatives to which the complainant told them Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2024.10.08 Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor 17:12:25 +0530 CA No. 191/23 Page 3/ 16 her parents would give the articles as per their financial capacity.
3.5 On 30.01.2021, pre wedding shoot of complainant and respondent had taken place and after the pre wedding shoot, respondent again repeated his demand of two cars to which the complainant showed her reluctance for giving the same. Thereafter, respondent became annoyed and left from there without giving any response and later on he apologized for his behaviour.
3.6 It was mutually decided before marriage that the complainant and respondent will go for honeymoon at Maldives and the expenses for the same shall be divided equally. They booked a honeymoon package and complainant made 50 percent of the payment and rest 50 percent was to be paid by respondent but after marriage, he refused to pay the same and the complainant took Rs. 50,000/- cash from her father.
3.7 Mother in law of complainant i.e. respondent no. 2 also took all the jewellery articles from the complainant and whenever the complainant asked for the same, she denied by giving excuses of snatching activities. Complainant was given her jewellery only for wearing in the functions of her matrimonial side and after the function is over, the respondent no. 2 took the said jewellery from the complainant in the car itself.
3.8 During the honeymoon trip also, respondent used to behave Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor 2024.10.08
CA No. 191/23 Page 4/ 16
17:12:30 +0530
with the complainant very badly and told her that his family is not happy with the articles brought by her in dowry as they were expecting cash of Rs. 21 lacs and one Audi car. After return from honeymoon trip, respondent no. 1 and 2 enquired about the income of the complainant and when the complainant stated that she used to earn Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month then respondent no. 2 shouted upon her by stating that they were expecting an income of Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- per month. Respondent no. 1 and 2 quarreled with the complainant and asked the complainant to discontinue her job and complainant was forced to do household chores.
3.9 After few days of marriage, respondent no. 1 Kunal Kapoor told the complainant that before marriage, he was having a girlfriend namely Krati but due to caste issue, his parents had not agreed for their marriage. Respondent no. 1 pressurized the complainant to contact Krati and remained in touch with her so that Krati can come to the complainant's matrimonial home freely but when the complainant refused for the same, respondent no. 1 slapped her and told the complainant that he cannot leave Krati and he married the complainant under the pressure of his family and under the impression that the complainant would be an open minded person being studied in London and she will accept his relation with Krati.
3.10 Before marriage, it was informed to the complainant's family Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date:
CA No. 191/23 Page 5/ 16 +0530
2024.10.08
17:12:36
that respondents were followers of Radha Swami Sect and they do not eat non veg and do not consume any hard drinks but after marriage, complainant was forced to cook chicken and meat at home and whenever respondent no. 1 and 4 called their friends for a party at home, respondent no. 1 used to consume alcohol.
Respondent no. 1 and 4 are chain smokers and after drinking, respondent no. 1 forced himself on the complainant without her consent.
3.11 On 14.04.2021 on the occasion of complainant's birthday, respondent no. 1 had given her a phone as a gift but he sold the old phone of the complainant without informing her. After few days, complainant came to know that respondent no. 1 had installed some tracking device in the said gifted phone. The respondent no. 1 used to pick the calls of the complainant from her family and friends and asked the complainant to answer them on speaker. The respondent no. 1 also asked the complainant not to talk with her family members.
3.12 The respondent no. 1 and 2 restricted the complainant from purchasing even her basic needs from the income of respondent no. 1 and she was asked to purchase the same from the money brought by her from her parental home.
3.13 The respondent no. 3 and 4 also used to pass taunting comments on the complainant. Respondent no. 3 used to enter the Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor 2024.10.08 17:12:52 +0530 CA No. 191/23 Page 6/ 16
room of complainant without knocking the same and searched her room as well as her purse for the money. Respondent no. 2 compelled the complainant to do family planning and to give birth to a male child on account of which respondent no. 1 forced himself on the complainant without her consent. The complainant also suffered severe stomach ache but respondents refused to visit a doctor for her treatment. When the complainant herself went to the doctor and told the respondents about the same they shouted on the complainant and also shouted on her mother over phone call.
3.14 The respondent no. 2 also tried to burn hands of the complainant many times during the kitchen chores. The respondent no. 3 and 4 also tried to molest the complainant several times in different manner. On 20.05.2021 at about 6.00 am, when the complainant was sleeping in her room and at that time, respondent no. 1 was roaming on the terrace, respondent no. 3 came to her room and tried to molest her and also threatened her not to disclose the said incident to anyone.
3.15 The complainant was not allowed to visit her parental home and when the complainant objected and raised her voice, respondent no. 1 took her to her parental home and created a scene there.
3.16 All the respondents used to tell the complainant that parents of the complainant had not given the dowry in the marriage as per their expectations and father of complainant should atleast fulfill Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor Date: 2024.10.08 17:12:59 +0530 CA No. 191/23 Page 7/ 16 their demand of new flat at Gurugram and one Audi car as they had already seen a good flat at Gurugram but the complainant refused to their said demand by stating that her father had already given sufficient articles in the marriage and no financial assistance for purchasing the flat at Gurugram shall be provided. Thereafter, all the respondents started threatening the complainant that they will not let the complainant live peacefully until their demands are fulfilled.
3.17 After going through all the mental and physical torture given by respondents, complainant decided to leave her matrimonial home after 2.5 months of marriage. Complainant stayed at her parental home from 1st May 2021 to 14th May 2021 but none of the respondents tried to contact her. The parents of the complainant many times requested respondent no. 1 to visit their house and sort out the matrimonial issues but he never spoke to them in a positive way. On 14th May, 2021, a meeting was arranged by Aunt ( massi) of the complainant who was the mediator of the marriage, between the parties where respondents apologized for their mistakes and the complainant accompanied them to her matrimonial home. On the way to matrimonial home of complainant, respondent no. 1 shouted and threatened the complainant that he will teach her a lesson as he has to apologize in front of his family only due to the complainant.
3.18 All the respondents were continuously demanding cash, Audi car and a flat at Gurugram from the complainant and seeing the Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date: 2024.10.08 17:13:06 +0530 CA No. 191/23 Page 8/ 16 refusal by the petitioner to fulfill their demands, harassment by the respondents increased day by day.
3.19 On 28th September, 2021, respondent no. 1 came home in drunken condition and gave beatings to the complainant and locked her in a room after which complainant made a call to her brother. Thereafter, parents and brother of the complainant came to her matrimonial home and tried to settle the matter but respondents used abusive language with the family of petitioner and they did not allow the family of the complainant to meet her on that day.
3.20 On 29th September, 2021, respondent no. 1 took the complainant outside home without informing the reason and left her at Metro Station and asked her to leave the matrimonial home and go back to her parental house. Respondent no. 1 told the complainant that if she wish to come back to her matrimonial home then she has to come with cash of Rs. 20 lac. The complainant suffered depression due to all abovesaid mental and physical tortures.
3.21 The complainant had also made a complaint at CAW Cell, North West District, Delhi where efforts were made for conciliation but no fruitful result came out.
3.22 Respondent no. 1 is running a tour and travel company by the name of Azalea Trip Hunter and different banquets in the name of Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date:
2024.10.08 CA No. 191/23 17:13:27Page +05309/ 16 Azalea Banquets at C-162, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi, Grand Azalea at 36, Rama Road Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, Delhi, Real Estate work in the name of Kapsons Realtors at 39A, DLF, Phase-2, Jacranda Marg and from the said sources, he is earning a handsome amount of around 10 lac per month but he does not want to give a single penny to the complainant for her basic expenses.
3.23 The respondent no. 1 may have his share in property bearing no. 117, VPO, KheriAshra, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana and agricultural land in Village KheriAshra, Jhajjar, Haryana.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the accused challenged the impugned judgment and order on sentence on the following grounds:
(a) The impugned order is incorrect and against the circumstances and factual matrix of the case.
(b) The Ld. Trial Court has completely ignored the documentary evidence on record.
(c) The Ld. Trial Court chose to ignore the bank statements filed by the respondent which shows transactions worth Rs. 20,83,806.36/- for financial year 2020-21 and Rs. 16,60,698.35/- for financial year 2021-
22 but the transactions for financial year 2022-23 fell to Rs. 3,72,463.84/-, after he gained the knowledge about the case filed by the complainant and the said amount Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date:
2024.10.08 CA No. 191/23 Page 10/ 16 17:13:37 +0530 did not match with the TDS Certificate filed by the respondent which clearly shows that the respondent has hidden the correct facts about his income and employment before Ld. Trial Court.
(d) The Ld. Trial Court without any basis concluded that the complainant has good sources of income and she has not disclosed her true income. Ld. Trial Court has considered the baseless allegations made by the respondent that complainant has been earning good income being owner of The House of Sash. However, the said company / firm is run by mother of complainant.
The complainant has herself admitted in her petition that she had been doing a job before her marriage and she has to leave her job after marriage due to the pressure of respondents.
(e) Ld. Trial Court has considered the claim of respondent that he is B.Tech and working as supervisor in a private firm and earning Rs. 22,000/- per month but Ld. Trial Court failed to observe that the respondent has been receiving multiple amounts of Rs. 22,000/- from the said alleged employer in a single month and those transactions have started taking place only after the filing of case by the complainant against the respondent which clearly shows the deliberate attempt of the Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date:
2024.10.08 CA No. 191/23 Page 17:13:45 11/ 16 +0530 respondent to mislead the court.
(f) Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that despite filing of ITR, respondent has filed only three TDS certificates in order to mislead the court. Ld. Trial Court also failed to consider that some incomes of the respondents which are shown in said TDS certificates, are not reflecting in the bank statements of those bank accounts which were admitted by the respondent in his income affidavit.
(g) Respondent in his income affidavit has mentioned that his father is dependent upon him, however, in his reply to the Domestic Violence petition filed by the complainant, respondent has himself claimed that some of those businesses are being run by his father which clearly shows that the respondent has deliberately misled the court.
(h) Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the documents filed by the respondent which support the contention of the complainant that he is earning in lacs per month and has multiple sources of income.
5. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued on the lines of grounds pleaded in the appeal and prayed for setting aside the Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
CA No. 191/23 Page 12/ 162024.10.08 17:13:50 +0530 impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon judgment dated 24.04.2007 in case titled as Bharat Hegde Vs Arushi Hegde and judgment dated 01.06.2012 in case titled as Arun Kumar Vs Meenu Kumar in CM (Main ) 1241/09.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has rebutted all the aforementioned contentions and has filed a reply to the present appeal stating that the present appeal is not maintainable as order dated 03.08.2023 is based on documentary evidences as well as material facts on record and Ld. MM has rightly passed the said order. It is further stated that since the day of marriage, the complainant / appellant misbehaved with the respondent and his family members and adopted several tactics to harass and torture the respondents.
6.1 It is further stated in the reply that complainant is running her own business in the name and style of 'The House of Sash' and she is earning a good income from the said business, therefore, she is capable to maintain herself and after dismissing her petition for maintenance, she has opened a new showroom and is earning in lacs which cannot be considered as 'mere survival'.
6.2 Ld. Counsel for respondent argued on the lines of reply to the present appeal filed by him and placed reliance upon judgment dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date:
2024.10.08 CA No. 191/23 Page 13/ 16 17:13:56 +0530 case Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr, (2021) 2 SCC, judgment dated 12.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case 'KN Vs RG, MAT. APP (F.C.) 93/2018 and CM Appl 1831/2018, judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Niharika Ghosh Vs Shankar Ghosh MAT. APP (F.C.) 248/2019 & CM Appl.20720/22.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
7. Having thoroughly considered both parties arguments and carefully examined the records, I now record my findings.
8. The appellant herein had approached the Family Court with a prayer for interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs per month. Vide order dated 27.04.2023, her request was declined by Ld. Judge, Family Courts and it was observed that she is not entitled for any interim maintenance at this stage. Thereafter, the question of interim maintenance was under consideration before Ld. Mahila Court wherein appellant claimed Rs. 75,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Her application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.08.2023 and it was observed that both parties have tried to conceal their income from the court. It was held that complainant is not entitled for any interim maintenance at this stage.
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has placed on record photographs of the appellant posted by her on social media wherein she has claimed herself as founder of 'The House of Sash' and she was conferred an award for Entrepreneurship and Excellence. She Digitally signed Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA CA No. 191/23 RANA Page Date:14/ 16 2024.10.08 17:14:04 +0530 has claimed herself as Owner / Creative Director at 'The House of Sash' having a diploma in fashion designing. She has put up this status on instagram, facebook and other social media platforms. There is no denial of these pictures and posts that they were not posted by the appellant on the social media platform. It is not her case that her accounts have been compromised and somebody else had posted these photographs. There is a video recording placed on record by the respondents to the effect that appellant claimed herself to be the owner of 'The House of Sash'. Ld. Trial Court has duly considered all the facts and circumstances of the parties and their conduct while passing the impugned order.
10. The facts and circumstances relied upon by the parties before this court were similar which were considered by Ld. Judge Family Courts and Ld. Trial Court. It is also matter of record that order dated 27.04.2023 passed by Ld. Judge, Family Courts has been challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court and the matter is still subjudice over there. Meaning thereby, appellant is seeking interim maintenance before this court as well as before Hon'ble High Court. Needless to say, any observation given by this court qua maintainability of claim of interim maintenance is of no consequence as Hon'ble High Court is ceased of the matter.
11. Considering the conduct of the parties, I am in agreement with Ld. Trial Court that both parties have tried to conceal their financial status from the court and have not approached the court Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor RANA Date:
CA No. 191/23 Page 15/+0530
2024.10.08
17:14:12 16
with clean hands. Appellant has failed to put up a case so that she may be awarded interim maintenance at this stage as she is a well qualified professional and running her own enterprise under the name and style of 'The House of Sash'. Hence, I am of the considered view that appellant has failed to put up a case so that interim maintenance may be granted to her. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 and accordingly, the same is upheld. With these observations, the present appeal stands dismissed and disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court with TCR.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRADHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2024.10.08 17:14:17 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (DHIRENDRA RANA) on 08.10.2024 Addl. Sessions Judge/ Spl. Judge (NDPS), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Shweta Mehta Vs Kunal Kapoor CA No. 191/23 Page 16/ 16