Delhi District Court
Amit Kumar Sharma vs Meenakshi Sharma on 22 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04
& SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CA No. 204412 of 2017
Amit Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sh. K. G. Sharma,
R/o 06218, Block 317a,
Anchorvale Road, Sengkang,
Singapore. .......... Appellant
Vs.
Meenakshi Sharma,
W/o Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma,
R/o K1/128, Top Floor, Chittaranjan Park,
New Delhi. .......... Respondent
Instituted on : 07.07.2015
Argued on : 11.01.2018
Decided on : 22.01.2018
JUDGMENT:
1 The appellant has impugned the order dated 22.05.2015 vide which he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/ to respondent no. 1 and Rs.40,000/ to the minor child w.e.f date of filing of the petition.
2 The appeal is filed on the grounds that no cause of action has arisen in Delhi as marriage has been solemnized in Bikaner and parties Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 1/28 are residing out of Delhi. The respondent has filed the petition in Delhi in order to harass him. No domestic relationship exists between the parties after the return of the respondent from Singapore on 22.06.2011. The respondent has done MBA who has an excellent academic record. She is highly qualified who used to earn more than him. The respondent has worked with Oracla Corporation, Bangalore, Delhi and Singapore. She has not will fully taken a good job in order to extort money from him. Such a qualified person does not need maintenance.
3 The living index of Singapore is twice in comparison to New Delhi. The cost of living is highest and major chunk of his salary is consumed in meeting daily needs. Ld. Trial Court did not consider the fact that he has to spend SGD 1500 per month for commutation, SGD 5000 on household expenses, litigation expenses, medical expenses, social obligations and misc. expenses, SGD 968 as installment of loan and remitted to DBS Bank on account of house loan and SGD 1500 for the maintenance of his parents. The knee surgery is not covered Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 2/28 under insurance policy. He is subjected to other taxes of 18% on his income. His father is a pensioner who is getting a meager pension of Rs.1203 per month which is not sufficient to maintain him. 4 There are irregularities in the affidavit filed by the respondent. The respondent has not provided information regarding the jewellery. The salary slips from her employers are not provided with a view to conceal the salary. The amount of Rs.178707/ lying in her PF Account is not considered. The respondent is admittedly earning Rs.65,000/ per month alongwith 9% interest per annum on FD of Rs.2,57,970/. The respondent has not provided the copies of her income tax returns. She has claimed that she does not use credit card. She has given incomplete bank details i.e.:
(i) Kotak Mahindra Bank - details provided only for a period from 08.06.2013 to 29.01.2014;
(ii) HDFC Bank - details provided only for a period from 29.06.2014 to 14.07.2014;
(iii) ICICI Bank - details provided only for a period from 07.09.2010 to 18.10.2013; and Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 3/28
(iv) Punjab National Bank - details provided only for a period from 29.08.2005 to 01.09.2013.
5 There are glaring in consistencies in the claim of respondent. Her income affidavit shows that a sum of Rs.20,000/ was only paid as an admission fees for the child whereas a sum of Rs.200/ was paid as an admission fee vide receipt dated 01.04.2013. A sum of Rs.71,755/ has been paid from 20.02.2012 till 04.01.2014 but no bill post 04.01.2014 has been provided. The para10 of the petition filed by the respondent shows that she is earning more than appellant. 6 Ld. Trial Court has not considered the fact that the maintenance to the respondent was denied by Singapore Court due to divorce which took place on 01.09.2014. The respondent has shown her ignorance about the divorce decree passed by the Court.
7 The respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands. She has filed salary slip of March, 2011. She has deliberately suppressed the details of her employment from April, 2000 till June, 2003. She is not entitled for maintenance. She has filed the petition Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 4/28 just to harass him. The order dated 22.05.2015 be set aside. 8 An application u/s 5 of Limitation Act is filed with the averments that he is employed and working in Singapore who was unable to come to file the appeal. On 25.06.2015 he has come to India and engaged the lawyer to file an appeal. He has returned back to Singapore to collect certain documents and again arrived in India on 03.07.2015. There is delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. Hence, this application.
9 The respondent has filed a reply to the effect that maintenance awarded to her and child is insufficient in order to enjoy a status commensurate to that of appellant. She should enjoy a status and standard of life which is enjoyed by appellant. She was constrained to return to India. The appellant has not paid a single penny for her maintenance and that of child. This financial deprivation in itself is sufficient cause against the appellant. She has been left to fend herself single handedly. Her income is not sufficient to maintain her and minor child. The appellant has been residing in 3 BHK property in Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 5/28 Singapore whereas she has been residing in 1 BHK accommodation. 10 Her take home salary is Rs.50,000/ per month. Her income and qualification is a matter of record. The appellant is living a life of luxury. The alleged expenses shown by the appellant are patently fabricated. The appellant is withdrawing Rs.70,000/ per month for the purpose of commutation and on the other hand he is saying that he is not a man of means.
11 There is no concealment of facts by her. All the documents have been placed on record. The appellant has concealed his true income and status from the Court. The appellant has placed salary slips for three months prior to and after March, 2015 but salary slip of March, 2015 is not placed on record by him. The appellant has not filed income tax returns showing computation of complete income. 12 There is no inconsistency in her claim qua the expenses of child. The proceedings in the Foreign jurisdiction were exparte. She has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Singapore and categorically stated that she has no funds to contest the matter. It is Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 6/28 settled law that such Foreign decrees are not recognizable in India. The appellant has abandoned her and minor child. The appellant has filed deficient documents. The appeal is meritless. 13 The reply to the application is filed by the respondent to the effect that mere inconvenience on the part of appellant is no ground to condone the delay. No document is placed on record in support of averments. There was lack of due diligence on the part of appellant. There is intentional delay on the part of appellant to file an appeal, so application be dismissed.
14 The respondent has filed an application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the appellant who has filed reply to the application. The respondent has filed rejoinder to the reply. Ld. Trial Court has decided the interim application of the respondent for the grant of maintenance. On 22.05.2015 the said application was decided and appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ as maintenance to the respondent and Rs. 40,000/ per month as maintenance to child. Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 7/28 15 Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent has concealed the material facts like her salary and expenses on the education of child from the Court which itself debars her from claiming any relief from the Court. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the respondent is highly educated who is gainfully employed as such she is not entitled for maintenance for herself from the appellant and reliance is placed on Anu Kaul Vs. Rajeev Kaul (2009) 13 SCC 209, Pranab Kumar Chakaraborthy Vs. Ruma Chakaraborthy, CMM 1534/2006 decided on 05.09.2008 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra of our own Hight Court, Manokaran @ Rama Moorthy Vs. M. Devaki, 2003 (1) CTC 723 and Ritula Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Rajeshwar Singh, Col. Jospeh Philip Vs. Ritu Philip, Family Court Appeal No. 120/12 decided on 09.10.2014 by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Dr. E. Shanti Vs. Dr. Vasudev, AIR 2005 Karnataka 417, Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100, Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, MAT APP (F.C) 143/14. Ld. Senior Counsel further contended that both the parents are equally Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 8/28 responsible for the upbringing of the minor child as such maintenance to the child should be on pro rata basis as income of both the spouses should be considered. Reliance is placed on Sayali Pathak Vs. Vasant Pathak, 2004 (75) DRJ 403. Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that cost of living in Singapore is very high and expenditure of Singapore cannot be compared with that of India. Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellant is handicap due to injury who has to undergo regular physiotherapy for his treatment. Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that appellant has some commitment towards his parents and expenses for the maintenance of his parents and other expenses should be considered while granting maintenance. Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that divorce has taken place at Singapore and judgment of Foreign Court is binding as such respondent is not entitled for maintenance. Reliance is placed upon Harbans Lal Malik Vs. Payal Malik, ILR (2010) VI Delhi 625 and Pashaura Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 749. Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 9/28 16 Ld. Counsel for respondent contended that respondent has not concealed any fact from the Court. He further contended that respondent was force to leave Singapore in June, 2011 and since then she has been maintaining herself as well as the child. He further submitted that income of the respondent is not enough to maintain herself as well as child. He further submitted that respondent should enjoy a status and standard of life which she has enjoyed in her matrimonial home and still enjoyed by the appellant while living in Singapore. He further submitted that income to the respondent is not an hindrance for the grant of maintenance to her and child. He has placed reliance on "Shailja & Anr. Vs. Khobbana, AIR 2017 SC 174, Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715, Kripa Narayan Vs. Mamta Pathak, 2016 SCC online Delhi 4780, Radhika Narang & Ors, Vs. Karun Raj Narayan & Anr., 2009 (108) DRJ 421, Smt. Anusha Tripathi Vs. Tejasvi Shashtri, 2013 SCC Online, Delhi4321 and Rani Sethi Vs. Sunil Sethi, 2011, SCC Online Delhi 1632.
Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 10/28 17 Heard and perused the record. There is delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal has been properly explained by the appellant. I am of the view that technicalities should not come in the way of deciding a case. The case should be decided on the basis of its merits. The delay on the part of appellant is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons explained by him. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed. 18 The contention of both the parties have to be considered in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by Hon'ble High Courts.
19 In Shri Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 386 (Full Bench Judgment) wherein it was held by their lordships in para 20 that there is nothing in the provisions to show that in determining the maintenance and its rate, the Magistrate has to inquire into the means of husband alone, and exclude the means of wife altogether from consideration. It was held in para 21 that Magistrate is competent to take into consideration the separate income Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 11/28 and means of wife.
20 In Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbana (Supra), it was held by their lordships that merely the appellant no. 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient to reduce the maintenance awarded by the trial court.
21 In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (Supra), it was held by their Lordships that merely because wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 22 In Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, 2017, SCC Online SC 440, the maintenance was awarded to the wife even though she was working.
23 In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC, 316, the court has enhanced the interim maintenance awarded to the wife Rs. 31,000/ p.m. to Rs. 1.5 lac p.m. keeping in view the financial status and standard of husband who owns a Four Star Hotel.
24 Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above, it is clear that maintenance can be granted Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 12/28 to the wife even though she is working. The argument of Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant that respondent is qualified and earning disentitles her from maintenance does not hold water. 25 In Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde, 140, (2007) DLT 16, their lordship has culled out following 11 factors, which can be taken into consideration for deciding the application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, relevant portion of which reads as under :
"8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining the interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The Court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are :
(i) Status of the parties;
(ii) Reasonable wants of the claimant;
(iii) The independent income and property of the claimant;
(iv) the number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain;
Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 13/28
(v) the amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style
as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
(vi) Nonapplicant's liabilities, if any.
(vii) Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant;
(viii) Payment capacity of the nonapplicant;
(ix) Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the nonapplicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed;
(x) The nonapplicant to defray the cost of litigation; and
(xi) the amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act."
26 The wife is entitled to maintenance in consonance with the status of the husband which is the determinative of the quantum of maintenance to the wife. She is entitled for the same status which she was enjoying at her matrimonial home.
27 In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7, it was held by their Lordships that the court has to consider the status of parties, their respective needs, the capacity of husband to pay Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 14/28 having regarding to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law. The amount of maintenance for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to when lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. Support is also drawn from Vikas Ahluwalia v. Simran Ahluwalia, 2013 SCC Online Del. 5191, Radhika Narang & Ors. v. Karun Raj Narang & Anr.,(Supra) and Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar (2011) 7, SCALE 741.
28 In the instant case, the marriage between the appellant and respondent is not in dispute. The birth of child is not in dispute. It is admitted fact that parties have resided in India as well as in Singapore after the marriage. There are allegations of domestic violence against the appellant which have been denied by him. The appellant has allegedly left the matrimonial home at Singapore in June, 2011 and came back to India due to domestic violence. The truth in the allegations and counter allegations will be seen during the course of Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 15/28 trial after letting in the evidence by both of them. 29 It is admitted fact that respondent and the appellant are educated and working. Both of them have filed their affidavits qua income and expenditure. The respondent did not disclose her salary in her application filed u/s 12 of the Act. The respondent has filed her two affidavits. The first affidavit shows her salary as 37,500/ (without IT deduction) and second affidavit shows her income as 48,015/ (without IT deduction). Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is concealment of income on the part of the respondent so she is not entitled for the maintenance on this score. To my mind, the argument does not hold water. It is correct that initially the respondent has not disclosed her income in the application. The direction was given to file the income and expenditure certificate. She has filed her first affidavit wherein she has given her monthly salary as Rs. 37.500/0 (without IT deduction) and thereafter another affidavit was filed later on wherein her monthly salary is Rs. 48,015/ ( without IT deduction). The bank statement from Kotak Mahindra Bank from Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 16/28 01.06.2013 till 04.02.2014 on the record shows that she was getting salary of Rs. 37,500/. This corroborates the version of her first affidavit qua salary. It is quite possible her salary might have increased thereafter and she has changed her monthly salary. 30 Her affidavit shows that she is getting interest on 2 FDRs of Rs.1,20,000/ and Rs.1,37,970/ in her first affidavit. The second affidavit shows that she is also getting interest on the FDRs of Rs.60,000/ with PNB. The amount in her PPF account is Rs.1,78,707/ which is same in both the affidavits. She is also paying premium for LIC, Medi Claim Policy. She has not given the exact details regarding the amount in the saving bank accounts with Kotak Mahindra Bank, PNB, ICICI Bank.
31 Her affidavit further shows that she has incurred an expenses of Rs.20,000/ on the admission fee of the child. She is incurring an expenses of Rs.6,225/ per month on the tuition fee of the child. The yearly expenses are Rs.50,000/ per annum. Rs. 12,000/ p.m. on travelling expenses for herself and child. The receipts issued by Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 17/28 Manva Bharti India International School shows that a sum of Rs.35,685/ was paid on 20.02.2013. The quarterly fee is Rs.11,460/ excluding other expenses. To my mind her application, affidavits of income and expenditure and documents on record has by and large disclosed the substantial compliance regarding filing of her income and expenditure. The argument of Ld. Sr. Counsel does not hold water.
32 The appellant has filed his affidavit. His affidavit shows that his take home salary is $9158.39. This is the admitted salary of the appellant. This affidavit shows that he alongwith respondent owns a house No. 06218, Block 317A, Anchor Vale Road, Singapore valuing $4,80,000. The affidavit filed before the High Court of Republic of Singapore by him with respect to proposed matrimonial property plan shows the estimated value of house as $558000. There is difference in the valuation of house in two affidavits for the reasons best known to the appellant. His affidavit filed in the Court below shows that he is paying monthly mortgage deduction of $968 per month towards HDB Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 18/28 whereas his affidavit filed qua proposed matrimonial property plan shows that amount outstanding loan due to HDB as on the date of reply from HDB is 00$ (affidavit is dated 21.12.2012). There cannot be payment of any outstanding loan once there is no loan as on 21.12.2012. There is no explanation to this effect on record. 33 His affidavit shows that he has to maintain his parents. His father is pensioner who is getting a meager pension of Rs.1203/ per month. He is contributing $1500 per month to maintain his parents. He has not clarified in his affidavit that he has been contributing $1500 per month for the maintenance of his parents form which date. He has not placed on record any bank statement to show that he has been regularly sending the said amount to the bank account of his father or mother.
34 His affidavit shows that he has been spending $2000 per month on transportation. He has not placed on record any receipt on record to show the huge expenditure on the transportation. Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 19/28 35 His affidavit shows that he has been paying $500 per month on his visit to India for litigation purposes.
36 His affidavit further shows that foreign travel expenditure, both personal and official trips, is paid by the employer. He is blowing hot and cold in the same breath so expenditure to this effect becomes doubtful.
37 His affidavit further shows that he has been incurring an expenditure of $2000 per month on medical/ hospitalization/ physiotherapy. The medical statement papers on record shows that on 31.5.2010 he went to Clifford Dispensary with the complaint of injury while playing soccer on 27.5.2010. His knee was twisted. He is keen to go back to soccer. On 6.8.2010 he has been admitted to Changi General Hospital, Singapore where he was diagnosed with RACL tear, MM posterior Horn tear and MFC, ACL recon and micro fracture. He was admitted for ACL reconstruction and MM repair. He was discharged on 7.8.2010. A bill of $11085 was raised and the amount was paid by Medisave and Americal International Assurance. The Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 20/28 appellant has paid nothing. On 14.7.2014 he was again admitted to Glen Eagle Hospital, Singapore for right knee instability. He was admitted on 14.7.2014 and discharged on the same day. He remained on medical rest till 12.8.2014. A bill of $21329 was raised out which Medisave has paid 4400$ and AIA Singapore PTE Ltd has paid 10000$. The balance amount of 6929$ was paid by Master Card. This is the medical treatment record placed by appellant from 27.5.2010 till 14.7.2010. He has only paid a sum of $6929. The balance amount has been paid by the insurance company. There is nothing on record at this stage that he has been regularly paying or incurring an expenses of $ 2000 per month on medical expenses including physiotherapy. 38 All these facts show that he has allegedly exaggerated the amount of expenditure on commutation, medical treatment including physiotherapy and maintenance of his parents. The possibility cannot be ruled out that he has concealed the actual expenditure from his salary.
Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 21/28 39 It is admitted fact that cost of living in Singapore is very high. The standard of living cannot be compared with the living in New Delhi. The expenditure is done in dollar in Singapore where it is done in rupees in India. However, the appellant has failed to show his actual expenditure in dollars in Singapore so his salary in dollars can be taken into consideration for the grant of interim maintenance. 40 The salary of appellant is $9158.39 per month. There is nothing on record that he regularly incurring an expenditure of $2000 per month on commutation, $2000 per month on medical expenses including physiotherapy and $1500 per month on maintenance of his parents and $968 per month on payment of house loan amount. He has substantial earnings. He has also savings to his credit. 41 The appellant and respondent have resided together in Singapore after the marriage. The lifestyle in Singapore is quite different to the life style in India. They were living in the healthy environment with amenities at their disposal. The life style was different. The salary of respondent is quite low as compared to the Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 22/28 salary of the appellant as Ld. Trial Court has assumed the income of the respondent as Rs.65,000/. The respondent is entitled to the life style similar to that which she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. It is a duty of the husband to maintain his wife. The obligation of the husband is on higher pedestal to maintain his wife and child. A wife is deprived of many comforts after she left the matrimonial home. Sometimes, she looses interest in the life. The monetary comfort from her husband gives her some solace. She might be living in her parental house but even then she has to incur some expenses. She has to constantly look after the child by performing her duties day and night. She does not get that support which she would have got in case she has been residing in the matrimonial home. She is entitled for the same status which she enjoyed while living in her matrimonial home at Singapore.
42 In Dr. P. K. Sood Vs. Usha Rani Sood, 1996 SCC Online Punjab & Haryana 1020 it was held by their lordship that under the Hindu law that father not only has a moral duty but even a statutory Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 23/28 obligation to maintain his infant children. The scope of his duty is to be regulated directly in relation to the money, status that the father enjoys. The right to maintenance of a child from his father cannot be restricted to two meals a day but must be determined on the basis of benefit, status and money that the child would have enjoyed as if he was living with the family including mother and father. In Sudhir Tewatia Vs. Kamlesh @ Ganga & Ors. 2017 SCC Online Delhi 11622, it was held by their lordship that statutory obligation is paramount to the wish of father and he cannot be permitted to limit this claim of the child on flimsy and baseless ground. The case law Dr. R. K. Sood Vs.Usha Rani Sood, Supra has been relied upon. In view of the recent judgment of our own High Court, the argument of Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant that maintenance of the child should be on pro rata basis does not hold water.
43 The respondent has been maintaining the child. She is paying tuition fee. She has to give other sources of happiness to the child i.e. holidays and outing etc. The child has to grow in a positive and happy Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 24/28 environment. The appellant has been spending $1200 per month on his education. He has been spending substantial amount on his education. The child has been deprived of that standard which he used to enjoy when he was with his father.
44 The record shows that appellant has filed a statement of claim for the grant of divorce before the Courts at Singapore alongwith statement of claim for divorce and purposed parenting plan and matrimonial property plan. The interim judgment of the divorce was passed on 20.09.2013 in the subordinates Courts of the Republic of Singapore and said interim Judgment has become final. Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that respondent is not entitled for maintenance when divorce has been granted by the competent Court and said judgment is binding upon the Courts in India. She has placed reliance on Pashaura Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (SUPRA). In that case, the husband has contracted second marriage on the allegation that first marriage is in existence. A case u/s 498A/494 IPC was registered against the husband. The divorce certificate has been issued by Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 25/28 Supreme Court of British Columbia which was on the record. The first marriage stands dissolved. There was no bigamy. The FIR in question was quashed. There is no dispute qua the preposition laid down by their lordship. There was no question of maintenance in the said case so the appellant cannot draw any support out of said judgment. 45 An act of domestic violence committed and subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefits which the aggrieved person is entitled under Domestic Violence Act. Support is drawn form Criminal Appeal No. 2069/14 tittled as Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansuri decided on 18.09.2014 by Hon'ble Apex Court, Sukjinder Singh Saini Vs. Harvinder Kaur, 2017 SCC Online Del. 11621 and V. D. Bhanot Vs. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183.
46 In view of the above stated position of law, the contention of Ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellant that respondent is not entitled for maintenance after the decree of divorce does not hold water and appellant cannot draw any support from the case law referred to by Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 26/28 him.
47 The income of the appellant is much more than the income of the respondent. The respondent has been maintaining the child since the day of her leaving the matrimonial home. The respondent is entitled for the status and standard of living which she used to enjoy her in matrimonial. The appellant cannot take the plea that respondent is not entitled to the standard in which she has been living with him and she should adopt a new standard of living after leaving the matrimonial home. The child also needs the same standard which he has enjoyed with his father or would have enjoyed if stayed with him. The income of the respondent is not enough to maintain that standard of life which she alongwith child has enjoyed in the matrimonial home. She alongwith child needs maintenance from the appellant to maintain that standard of life.
48 The Ld. Trial Court has rightly assessed the amount of interim maintenance to be paid by the appellant to the respondent and child. 49 I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. Trial Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 27/28 Court. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 50 TCR alongwith copy of the judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
51 Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 30.01.2018.
52 Appeal file be consigned to record room.
announced in the open court on th 22 January, 2018 (SURESH KUMAR GUPTA) Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South East, New Delhi Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016 28/28