Delhi District Court
Smt Monika Verma Deo vs Sh Ajay Deo on 9 March, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS 02
(CENTRAL) DELHI
Crl. R. NO. 32/14
Smt Monika Verma Deo
W/o Sh Ajay Deo
D/o Sh Bhopal Singh Verma
r/o 111D, Thompson Road
Railway Colony, Near Minto Bridge
New Delhi02.
........REVISIONIST
versus
Sh Ajay Deo
S/o Sh Raghavir Lal
R/o 1665, Kucha Dakhni Rai
Street, Daryaganj
New Delhi02.
.......RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION :21.10.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT :09.03.2015
J U D G M E N T
1. Present Revision petition has been filed by the revisionist against the order passed by the ld. Trial Court for grant of Interim maintenance of Rs. 6500/ to the Revisionist/wife from Page 1 of 9 pages 2 the date of filing of the petition till she is legally entitled to receive the same vide order dt. 24.07.2014.
2. Revisionist/petitioner/wife had challenged the impugned order on the ground that Ld. Trial court has not considered the income of the respondent/husband completely and has faulted in considering the income of the respondent/husband to be about Rs. 1215,000/ per month.
3. The impugned order was passed by the Ld Trial Court of Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani in the petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, hereinafter referred as Domestic Violence Act, filed by the revisionist/wife against her husband/respondent. Along with the petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act, the revisionist/wife had also moved an application u/s 23 (2) of Domestic Violence Act for grant of interim reliefs. By this application the petitioner/complainant/wife had claimed the interim maintenance from the husband.
4. The relationship between the parties of husband and wife is admitted. Admittedly, there are three children born out of the wedlock between the parties who are residing with the petitioner/wife. The dispute arose between the parties because of which the parties are living separately and the petitioner/wife had filed the complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Page 2 of 9 pages 3 the application u/s 23 of the Domestic Violence Act for the Interim reliefs. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court, the revisionist/wife has assailed the order on following grounds.
a) That the impugned order passed by Ld Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and is not supported with admitted principles of law.
b) That Ld Trial Court has not appreciated and considered the facts that the defence of respondent/husband was absolutely false.
c) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the documents placed on record by the present petitioner/revisionist.
d) That the ld. Trial Court has wrongly and erroneously observed the respondent's income as per Minimum Wages Act and has assessed his income as Rs. 1215,000/ per month.
With all these grounds and similar grounds, it has been prayed by the revisionist that the impugned order dt. 24.07.2014 passed by the Ld. Trial Court be modified and the maintenance awarded @ Rs. 6500/ per month may be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/ per month.
5. I have heard arguments from Sh Inderjeet Barnala, counsel for revisionist and Sh Inderjeet Singh, Ld counsel for respondent. Ld counsel for petitioner has also filed written Page 3 of 9 pages 4 submissions.
6. I have considered the written submissions made by Ld counsel for the parties . I have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court as well as material available on the trial court record.
7. It has been contended by the revisionist/wife before the Ld. Trial Court as well as in the present revision that the respondent/husband is working as a Contractor doing the business of Water Treatment Plant , Sewage plant in various Five Star Hotels in Delhi and NCR, and also in leading Hospitals. It has also been contended by the revisionist that the respondent/husband is Director of five companies :
a) Aadhar Technology Pvt. Ltd. at 43, Lekhram Road, 2nd Floor, Daryaganj, Delhi.
b) Alpha Services at 1665, Dakhini Rai Street, 1st Floor, Daryg Ganj, N Delhi.
c) Anamya Traders Pvt. Ltd. at 2725B, Kucha Chellan, Darya Ganj, N. Delhi.
d) Aadhar Env. Technology Pvt. Ltd. at 138/1/9, 2nd Floor, Kishangarh, N. Delhi.
e) Indus Trade 1665, Dakhani Rai Street, Darya Ganj, N. Delhi.
With these averments, the contentions of revisionist/wife is that husband/respondent is earning approximately Rs. 30 lacs to Page 4 of 9 pages 5 Rs. 50 lacs per month .
8. On the other hand, she is working as a Clerk in Northern Railway and earning Rs. 21,000/ per month. She has to provide education and other basic Amenities to three minor children who are living with her.
9. On the contrary, contention of the respondent/husband is that he is earning Rs. 10,000/per month and is living with his old mother who is patient of high B.P. It is also submitted by the respondent/husband that he has no income from the above companies as the company Alpha Services and Indus Trade were closed in August, 2011 due to losses and Sales Tax Registration number of Aadhar Technology was surrendered in 2011. As regards the other companies i.e. Anamya Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Aadhar Env. Technology Pvt. Ltd. , it is stated by the respondent/husband that both the companies are run by another Director and respondent is only a Silent Director in these companies on Honorary basis.
10. After considering in detail the documents filed on record by the parties and the submissions of the parties, the Ld. Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that all the five companies alleged by the revisionist/wife are not providing any earning/income to the respondent/husband and solely on the basis that respondent/husband is a post graduate, his income was Page 5 of 9 pages 6 assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act by the ld. Trial Court and granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 6500/ to the revisionist/wife. Taking into account the submissions of Ld. counsel for the parties and the material on record, I am of the opinion that Ld. Trial court has not correctly appreciated the documents and contentions of the parties while arriving at the conclusion for granting Rs. 6500/ as monthly maintenance to the revisionist/wife.
11. The very contention of the respondent/husband that three companies have been closed and he is a silent Director of two companies, shows that the allegations levelled by the Revisionist/wife are primafacie correct or that the husband was involved in the business of these five companies. It is a common knowledge that the persons who are doing business have the tendency to conceal their income and it is very difficult to assess their income , unless all the documents relevant to the purposes are filed on record. In the present case, respondent/husband has placed on record the ITRs of himself for the Assessment year 200809 and no fresh ITR after that was placed on record by him. As regards the companies, only ITR of Aadhar Technology Pvt. Ltd. were placed on record by the respondent/husband. He has deliberately not placed on record any document in respect to the other four companies nor any letter of surrendering the Page 6 of 9 pages 7 licence has been placed on record nor the present status of the Director or the profit sharing has been placed on record. If the companies have been closed or they are not doing any business or respondent/husband is not getting any income out of those companies, it was the duty of the respondent/husband to place the same on record for perusal of the ld. Trial Court. From perusal of the Affidavit filed on record by the respond/husband in the present case before Ld. Trial Court , it is clear that he has admitted that he is getting the profit share of 10% from Aadhar Technology Pvt. Ltd. and ENV Technology Pvt. Ltd. and to avoid the exact computation of his income, he has not placed on record the Profit and Loss Account or ITR of these two companies on trial court record so that Ld. Trial court was not in a position to calculate the exact amount of the share of 10% earned by the respondent/husband.
12. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that it cannot be believed that a person who is doing the business to the extent of running five companies together will, all of a sudden, stop the business and start earning Rs. 1015,000/ per month, even respondent/husband has not explained where he is working now and from where he is earning Rs. 1015,000/ per month as alleged by him.
13. Even if his ITR filed in the assessment year 200809 is Page 7 of 9 pages 8 considered, his annual income was about Rs, 2,91,000/ which means that at that time he was earning at least Rs. 25,000/ approximately per month and after a gap of at least six years, it cannot be believed that the present income would have gone down to Rs. 10,000/ without there being any specific reason for the same. Considering the fact that respondent/husband has deliberately concealed the ITR and other relevant documents in respect to the other two companies from which he is admittedly getting share of 10%, I am of the opinion that income of the respondent/husband cannot be considered to be less then Rs. 25,000/ per month, at least , in the present situation also.
14. As the revisionist/wife is working as Clerk in Northern Railway, being in Government job, her income cannot be concealed and she has admitted that she is getting Rs. 21,000/ (Gross income Rs. 25,000/) per month. Admittedly , she is maintaining the three children, therefore, she requires maintenance for the upbringing and future of minor children. The total income of family thus comes out to be Rs. 50,000/ from both i.e. from revisionist/wife as well as respondent/husband's income.
15. In Annuvarita Vohra vs Sandeep Vohra, 2004 (3) AD 253 it has been held that the income of the family should be divided equally between all the members entitled to maintenance with Page 8 of 9 pages 9 one extra portion/share being allotted to the earning spouse since extra expenses would necessarily occur.
16. Applying the principle laid down in above mentioned judgment, the present revision petition is allowed and impugned order of Ld Trial Court is modified to the effect that respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month to petitioner from the date of filing of application by the revisionist/wife till she is legally entitled to recover the same. However, this order shall be subject to any other maintenance being received by the petitioner under any provision of law before any other court. However, this order shall not tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
17. Trial court record be sent back to Ld Trial Court with the copy of the order. File of revision be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9th March, 2015.
( SHAIL JAIN ) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL) DELHI Page 9 of 9 pages