Delhi District Court
Rahul Babbar vs Megha on 18 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 05 (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 21/18
I.D. No. 108/18
PS Jagatpuri
Rahul Babbar
S/o Sh. Ravi Babbar
R/o 3/44, Grond Floor, Rear Side,
Savitri Nagar, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi ...... Appellant
Vs.
Megha
W/o Sh. Rahul Babbar
R/o 78-B, Gali No. 4,
Rashid Market, Near Kukreji,
Delhi - 51 ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 06.07.2018
Date of reserving order : 04.11.2020
Date of judgment : 18.11.2020
AND
Criminal Appeal No. 33/19
I.D. No. 115/19
PS Jagatpuri
1. Smt. Megha
W/o Sh. Rahul Babbar
2. Baby Ruhi
(Through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Megha)
D/o Rahul Babbar
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 1 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
Both R/o D-30,
4FF, Gali No. 7,
New Govind Pura,
Delhi ...... Appellants
Vs.
Rahul Babbar
S/o Sh. Ravi Babbar
R/o C-65, Panchsheel Vihar,
TF, Right side Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi
Also at:
3/44, Grond Floor, Rear Side,
Savitri Nagar, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi. ...... Respondent
Date of institution : 28.05.2019
Date of reserving order : 04.11.2020
Date of judgment : 18.11.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common order, the court has decided the appeals filed, separately, by Rahul Babbar and Megha challenging the order dated 25.05.2018 of Ld. MM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the Court has decided the application moved by Megha for granting interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'PWDV Act') and directed Rahul Babbar to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to Megha and their minor daughter from the date of filing of the case till disposal of the petition.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 2 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of present appeals are that Megha (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') filed a petition under Section 12 of PWDV Act against Rahul Babbar (hereinafter referred as 'respondent'), who is her husband, and four other persons of her in-laws family. Simultaneously, she filed an application for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per month during the pendency of the above said petition as well as a sum of Rs.1 lakh as litigation expenses.
3. Vide the impugned order dated 25.05.2018, Ld. Trial Court observed that 'it is the bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife in such circumstances. The respondent has merely stated that he is a cashier at Punjabi Dhaba in Malviya Nagar, Delhi, but there are no photographs to show the existence of such a place. There is not even a shop number or the exact location to show where the said shop is situated. The respondent has stated that he is a cashier at the shop which means that he would be in-charge of maintaining the accounts and earning for all days. This job seems pretty important as well as responsible and hence, I cannot believe that for doing such a job, the respondent would be getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month. The nature of this job is otherwise falling in the category of semi skilled function, for which the minimum wages are more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, I fix a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance of the complainant and the minor child, liable to be paid by the respondent from the date of filing of this case till disposal of the petition under Section 12 of PWDV Act.' Hence, the respondent Rahul Babbar has filed an appeal challenging the above-said order with a request to set-aside the said order.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 3 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
4. On the other hand, the complainant Megha has also filed an appeal with a prayer to modify the abovesaid order by enhancing the interim maintenance to Rs.70,000/- per month payable to her and minor daughter Baby Ruhi and also allow legal fees to meet huge expenses of litigation.
5. Since both the appeals have arisen out of a single order of Ld. Trial Court and facts and circumstances represented by the parties are almost same in both the appeals, hence, both have been decided through this common order.
6. Arguments have been advanced by the Counsels for the parties. Ld. Counsel for Rahul Babbar has argued in respect of the appeal titled as 'Rahul Babbar v. Megha' that the appellant has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The impugned order had been passed on 25.05.2018, thus, the limitation period for filing the present appeal expired on 25.06.2018. However, owing to summer vacations, courts were closed on 25.06.2018 and the same re-opened only on 02.07.2018. Further, the appellant was unwell during first week of July, 2018. The appellant has placed a prescription slip dated 30.06.2018 of the doctor advising rest for five days. Thus, the present appeal could be filed after delay of three days.
7. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for Megha has argued that summer vacations started on 09.06.2018, thus, the appellant had sufficient time to file the appeal before vacation judge. Further, the prescription slip of the doctor is false and fabricated and moreover, it has been mentioned in the slip that the same is not valid for medico-legal cases. Thus, the present application shall be dismissed.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 4 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
8. Firstly, the appellant Rahul Babbar did not place the circular relating to summer vacations of the courts on record so as to show the specific period of vacations during the concerned year. Further, it has not been clarified by the appellant that whether during the said summer vacations, the counter for filing the present appeal was also closed, due to which the appellant was restrained from filing the same. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant on this aspect is not convincing. The limitation period for filing the present appeal expired on 25.06.2018, while the present appeal was filed on 05.07.2018. Thus, there is delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. Considering the aspect that the appellant had an impression that he could not file the appeal due to summer vacations of the courts and further, he was unwell for five days just prior to filing of the present appeal, a lenient view may be taken in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the application for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal is allowed.
9. On merits, Ld. Counsel for Rahul Babbar has argued that first of all, the complainant had not asked for maintenance for the minor child in her application moved for granting interim maintenance. Thus, Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in absence of pleadings to the effect. Further, the respondent Rahul Babbar has placed relevant documents on record to show that he had been earning Rs.8,500/- per month only, but Ld. Trial Court has wrongly brushed aside all the related documents proving present monthly income of the respondent and granted interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the complainant and her minor daughter on the basis of minimum wages.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 5 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
10. Ld. Counsel for Megha has argued that the respondent has placed fabricated documents on record to hide the actual income and living condition of the respondent and presented a concocted picture regarding his employment and living standard. He has further stated that the factum of birth of baby girl has been admitted by the respondent in his affidavit annexed with the reply to the complaint. Ld. Trial Court has followed the benevolent nature of the PWDV Act and accordingly, granted interim maintenance to the complainant as well as her child. He has further stated that the respondent did not perform his duty to maintain his minor daughter and the complainant had to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8817/2017 titled as 'Baby Ruhi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, requesting for medical treatment of baby Ruhi under EWS category. Rather, Ld. Trial Court did not consider the medical expenses to be incurred for medical treatment of minor child and other contentions made by the complainant in her petition while deciding the amount of maintenance to be paid to the complainant and her child.
11. Ld. Counsel for complainant Megha had pointed out flaws in the documents furnished by the respondent. He has stated that the complainant filed a complaint to the police authorities on 20.06.2017 and to CAW Cell on 27.06.2017. Further, a non-cognizable offence report dated 26.06.2017 was also lodged by mother of complainant alongwith MLCs of complainant, Nainsey and Tanveer. It is only thereafter the parents of complainant had got notice published in the newspaper on 27.07.2017 stating that they have disowned the respondent. This publication has been made just to deny legal rights available to the complainant. Further, the rent agreement placed on record by the respondent shows that the affidavit was purchased on 12.07.2017, while CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 6 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri the rent agreement is stated to have been executed on 12.05.2017. Furthermore, it is highly improbable that any accommodation consisting of two rooms, kitchen and toilet-cum-bath can be taken on lease in the posh area of Malviya Nagar in paltry rent of Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, the license of Punjabi Dhaba was obtained only after the impugned order just to nullify the observations made by Ld. Trial Court in respect of submission of the respondent regarding his working as cashier at Punjabi Dhaba.
12. Trial Court record shows that the respondent Rahul Babbar has claimed that presently, he is working as cashier at Punjabi Dhaba. He has stated that after filing of various complaints by the complainant, his parents disowned him and threw him out of their house. Thereafter, he started living in a rented accommodation. The rent agreement placed on record bears the date of agreement as 12.05.2017, while the date of purchase of annexed affidavit is 12.07.2017. The said discrepancy may be considered as typographical error. However, the respondent has not placed any document on record showing the payment of rent of Rs.4,500/- to the landlord. It has been submitted that the rent has been paid by the employer of the respondent to the landlord directly. But, there is no stipulation mentioned in the rent agreement that the rent would be paid by employer of the respondent. Even if, the payment of rent has been made by the employer of the respondent, there must be some document available to substantiate the same, either the statement of account, of landlord or employer, if payment has been made through cheque or receipt of payment of rent issued by the landlord.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 7 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
13. The appellant has placed on record a certificate issued by his employer and health trade license issued in favour of his employer to prove that he is working as cashier at Punjabi Dhaba.
14. Ld. Trial Court has observed that 'the respondent has merely stated that he is a cashier at Punjabi Dhaba in Malviya Nagar, Delhi, but there are no photographs to show the existence of such a place. There is not even a shop number or the exact location to show where the said shop is situated.' Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the said dhaba owner Mr. Balvinder Singh has attended the marriage of complainant and respondent from the side of the respondent Rahul Babbar as his distinguished guest, which could be inferred from the photographs placed on record by the complainant. Further, the shop of the alleged Punjabi Dhaba is just five shops away from the shop of respondent and his father. Thus, the dhaba owner issued the alleged certificate to oblige the respondent and his father.
15. Perusal of said certificate shows that the same does not bear any date as to when the same was issued. Further, the said certificate does not bear the full details of the address of the said dhaba as shown in the health trade license in respect of Punjabi Dhaba annexed with the present appeal. The court is in agreement with the submission made by Ld. Counsel for complainant that the said license has been issued on 30.05.2018 i.e. after the date of impugned order i.e. 25.05.2018. The respondent has placed on record his bank statement showing receipt of Rs.4,000/- per month on account of salary. But the said statement relates to the period from 27.11.2017 to 02.03.2018 only, contrary to the mandate of filing the bank statement of current and saving accounts for last three years. Moreover, CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 8 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri when the respondent has been employed at Punjabi Dhaba since July, 2017, then what restrained him in filing bank statement from July, 2017 at least to prima facie show that he had been getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month after deducting rent of Rs.4,500/- per month directly paid to landlord.
16. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has stated that the respondent is still running the shop with his father in the name of 'Ravi Electricals'. The said fact has been claimed by the respondent in his Facebook posts. The complainant has placed screenshots to this effect on record. Further, the complainant has placed on record a cash memo issued by the respondent himself to a customer, sent by the complainant on 12.07.2017, which shows that the respondent is still running the shop in the name of 'Ravi Electricals'.
17. The respondent has claimed in his appeal that his employer and landlord are old acquaintances of each other. The complainant has placed photographs of her marriage showing that the said dhaba owner Mr. Balvinder Singh has attended the marriage from the side of the respondent Rahul Babbar as his distinguished guest In these circumstances, the submission made by Ld. counsel for the complainant finds relevance that landlord and employer of the respondent have executed/issued the documents just to help the respondent out of their relations with him and his parents. The abovesaid observations raise serious doubts in respect of contention of respondent that he is working as cashier at Punjabi Dhaba.
18. The respondent has claimed that his educational qualification is of 6 th pass. He has placed a school leaving certificate on record in support of his CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 9 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri contention. Perusal of the said certificate shows that the respondent has sought his withdrawal from the school on 30.09.2009, while he was in the 7th class. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has placed screenshots of facebook posts of the respondent, wherein he has claimed himself to have studied at Shaeed Bhagat Singh College and gone to Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. It appears that the respondent has not presented true facts in respect of his educational qualification before the court. The document placed on record by the respondent is merely a school leaving certificate, which has been issued at the age of 14 years of the respondent and in the middle of academic session. It is highly improbable that a person of reasonable means would drop out from the school at the age of 14 and when he is only in 7 th standard. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education. Section 2(f) of the Act has defined elementary education as the education from 1st class to 8th class. Thus, the claim of respondent to be 6th pass only does not appear to be convincing particularly when there was existence of no detention policy at the relevant time. It appears that claim of less educated has been made so that Ld. Trial Court would compute and award less amount of maintenance to the complainant considering the ability and capacity of respondent to earn vis-a-vis his educational qualification.
19. It is correct that the complainant had not claimed maintenance for her child in the complaint filed before Ld. Trial Court. But, it is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed on 13.07.2017, while the child was born on 22.09.2017. The respondent has admitted this fact in his reply to the CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 10 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri complaint. It is true that the complainant has not amended the complaint or the application for seeking interim maintenance incorporating the factum of birth of child after filing of the complaint. But, it is trite law that PWDV Act is a welfare legislation for effective protection of the rights for women guaranteed under the Constitution. Accordingly, in the abovesaid circumstances, when Ld. Trial Court, having considered the existing circumstances, granted maintenance to the complainant as well as to the minor child, then this Court does not find any illegality. Even otherwise, when the amount of maintenance is to be calculated out of income of the husband, then too, by taking into account the dependency of minor child upon mother, the maintenance amount would increase proportionately. Moreover, this is stage of interim maintenance only and the aspect of amending the pleadings etc. would be taken into consideration at the time of final disposal of the petition filed by the complainant.
20. Ld. Counsel for Rahul Babbar has argued that Ld. Trial Court did not consider the payment of Rs.15,000/- made to the complainant pursuant to the order passed by the concerned court in a case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that Ld. Trial Court has adjudicated upon the interim maintenance to be paid by the respondent and thus, the said payment of Rs.15,000/- may be taken into consideration at the time of final disposal of the petition filed by the complainant.
21. Ld. Trial Court has observed that 'in the written statement filed by the respondent No. 1, he has admitted that the couple was leading a luxurious life wherein they used to visit malls, go out for holidays, watch movies and do other recreational activities in their happier times but the CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 11 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri respondent has claimed that he was totally dependent upon his father for meeting with these expenses and that after the matrimonial disputes, his father has stopped supporting him. If one sees the status of living of the respondent as revealed by him in his income affidavit, it does not seem that a person enjoying such lifestyle and habits would settled for a living at the sum of Rs.8,500/- per month by working at Punjabi Dhaba at Malviya Nagar, Delhi. Moreover, the rate of salary/earning seems grossly undervalued for todays day and age when the rate of minimum wages of an unskilled labour have also touched more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, a person belonging to such a class and strata of society shall not serve in a job which fetches him a paltry sum of Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, the argument of the complainant that the earnings have ben misrepresented seems reasonable. The complainant and respondent have filed a number of photographs showing their lifestyle in happier times. It is evident that complainant was enjoying a respectable standard or living, at the time of her stay in the matrimonial house. She deserves to get maintenance so that she can continue with the same standard of living even after separation from the husband.'
22. Considering the observations made by the Court in this order, the Court does not find any infirmity in the abovesaid observations of Ld. Trial Court. When a doubt has already been created or in other words, the respondent has not been able to prove, prima facie, that he is earning merely Rs.8,500/- per month, then, Ld. Trial Court has rightly taken recourse to assess the income of respondent Rahul Babbar on the basis of minimum wages applicable to the State of Delhi. It is pertinent to note that as per order of Government of NCT of Delhi F. No.12(142)/02/MW/VII/3636 dated 23.10.2019, minimum wages of a CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 12 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri person, who is non-matriculate and working in the capacity of clerical and supervisory staff, is Rs.16,284/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2019. Considering the above-said benchmark declared by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, this Court is of the view that monthly income of appellant herein has been correctly assessed by Ld. Trial Court.
23. At this stage, this Court is reminded of the observation made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kanupriya Sharma v. State & Anr., (2019) 261 DLT 349, that:
21. An application under Section 23(1) of the D.V. Act is an application for fixing interim maintenance. Interim maintenance is fixed on taking a prima facie view of the matter. Serious disputed questions of facts raised at that stage, requiring evidence cannot be gone into.
24. Thus, this Court does not find any incorrectness in the finding of Ld. Trial Court while assessing the income of the respondent. It is worth mentioning that while arriving at this conclusion, the Court stands guided by the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, in Criminal Appeal no. 730/2020 decided on 04.11.2020. The excerpts are:
II Payment of Interim Maintenance
(ii) At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount of guess-work or rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded. It is often seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 13 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
(i) [O]n the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
(iv) Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and / or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Emphasis supplied]
25. So far as amount of monthly maintenance to be awarded to the complainant is concerned, Ld. Trial Court has rightly decided the amount of maintenance to be paid to the complainant and her minor child. Taking the income of the respondent Rahul Babbar as Rs.16,000/- per month into consideration and applying the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 110 (2004) DLT 546; this Court does not find any infirmity in the amount of monthly maintenance calculated by Ld. Trial Court i.e. two parts are kept for husband and one part each for the complainant/wife and child. Accordingly, the appeal titled as 'Rahul Babbar v. Megha' is dismissed.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 14 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
26. Ld. Counsel for Megha has argued in respect of the appeal titled as 'Megha v. Rahul Babbar' that the appellant has moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant could not file present appeal within limitation period due to the reason that minor child Baby Ruhi was born with a serious nature of lung disease and was under continuous medical treatment since the date of her birth till filing of the present appeal. The appellant has placed medical bills to this effect from 20.06.2018 to 09.02.2019. He has further argued that when the baby child showed some recovery, the appellant discussed the case with her newly appointed advocate, who advised her to file the present appeal. Thereafter, the present appeal was filed.
27. Ld. Counsel for Rahul Babbar has argued that the appellant needs to explain delay of each and every day rather than making vague and sweeping statement. The record of the present appeal shows that the appellant had got the certified copy of the impugned order in the month of June, 2018 itself. The appellant had been appearing regularly in every hearing in all her cases filed against the respondent. Thus, she was aware of the impugned order and was also in position to come to court to pursue all her cases. Further, the medical record annexed with the present application does not corroborate the lung illness. Hence, the present application shall be dismissed.
28. Perusal of the record of appeal titled as 'Megha v. Rahul Babbar' shows that the appellant had filed the application for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order on 01.06.2018 and received the same on 27.06.2018. If the abovesaid period taken for obtaining the certified copy is excluded, CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 15 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri then the limitation period for filing the present appeal had expired on 21.07.2018. But, the present appeal was filed on 27.05.2019 i.e. after delay of more than 10 months. The appellant has placed on record medical bills of her daughter from 20.06.2018 to 09.02.2019 with contention that since her daughter was unwell, thus, she could not file the present appeal timely.
29. Perusal of trial court record shows that the complainant Megha had appeared before Ld. Trial Court, in person, on 28.11.2018 and 28.02.2019. Further, in the appeal filed by the Rahul Babbar too, the respondent Megha had appeared before the court, in person, on 25.07.2018, 04.09.2018 and 12.02.2019 before filing the present appeal. She was represented through her counsel too before both the Courts. Thus, the court is in agreement with the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the opposite party/Rahul Babbar that the appellant herein/Megha was well aware of the impugned order and getting appropriate legal representation during the period from the date of impugned order till filing the present appeal. Ld. Counsel for Rahul Babbar has argued that present appeal had been filed as a counter blast to the appeal filed by Rahul Babbar against the appellant herein. Furthermore, the appellant herein has not placed medical documents of minor child Baby Ruhi after the date of 09.02.2019 till 27.05.2019 i.e. date of filing of present appeal. Thus, this Court is of the view that the appellant herein has failed to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the limitation period. Accordingly, the application moved for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 16 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri
30. Though the abovesaid application has been dismissed, yet the Court wishes to deal with the merits of appeal, as well, in the larger interest of justice. The complainant has claimed maintenance amount of Rs.70,000/- per month. In her petition, the complainant claimed that the respondent No. 1 Rahul Babbar is earning about Rs.1,50,000/- per month from the shop in the name of 'Ravi Electricals', Rs.30,000/- per month out of interest income, Rs.50,000/- per month as rental income, thus, his total income is not less than Rs.2,50,000/- per month. In the present appeal filed by Megha, it has been stated that Ld. Trial Court did not take into consideration that respondent is having a swift car. On the contrary, the respondent has denied all the submissions made by the complainant in her present appeal in respect of income of the respondent. Further, in his written statement filed by the respondent before Ld. Trial Court, the respondent stated that the house is self acquired property of his parents, scorpio car is in the name of his father and swift car is in the name of his mother. Further, his father Ravi Babbar is the sole proprietor of the business of 'Ravi Electricals'.
31. The complainant has not produced any cogent document or evidence to establish her submission in respect of monthly income of the respondent to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. Though this Court has already shown its doubt in respect of contention of the respondent to be working as cashier at Punjabi Dhaba and earning Rs.8,500/- per month only, but the said observation of this Court does not tantamount to acceptance of plea of the complainant Megha regarding the income of respondent. Furthermore, the Court is in agreement with submission made by Ld. Counsel for Rahul Babbar that the complainant has not explained/clarified as to how she has arrived at figure of Rs.70,000/- per month to be paid as maintenance to CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 17 of 18 & CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar PS Jagatpuri her. Moreover, the complainant has herself admitted that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 27.09.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 8817/2017 titled as 'Baby Ruhi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi has directed for medical treatment of baby girl under EWS category. In these circumstances, no case is made out for enhancing the amount of maintenance decided by Ld. Trial Court to be paid to the complainant and her daughter.
32. Accordingly, appeal titled as 'Megha v. Rahul Babbar' is also dismissed. Appeal files be consigned to Record Room. Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith a copy of this order.
Announced in the open Court NAVEEN GUPTA
on 18th day of November, 2020 Addl. Sessions Judge - 05
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CA No. 21/18 (ID no.108/18) Rahul Babbar v. Megha Page 18 of 18
&
CA No. 33/19 (ID no.115/19) Megha v. Rahul Babbar
PS Jagatpuri