Delhi District Court
Smt. Vinita Bansal vs Sh. Amit Bansal on 9 February, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHALINDER KAUR, ADJ, DELHI.
SUIT NO.103/2004.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SMT. VINITA BANSAL ....PLAINTIFF.
VERSUS
SH. AMIT BANSAL ....DEFENDANT.
&
SUIT NO. 254/2004
IN THE MATTER OF:-
BABY MANNAT BANSAL ....PLAINTIFF.
VERSUS
SH. BALBIR SINGH AND ANR. ....DEFENDANT.
ORDER:-
1. Plaintiffs Smt. Vinita Bansal and Baby Mannat Bansal have filed a suit for claim of maintenance under Section 33 CPC and under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. They have also preferred applications under Section 151 CPC praying for Interim maintenance, which are under disposal vide this order.
2. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the 2 defendant has neglected and deserted the plaintiff Smt. Vinita Bansal since 04.01.2004 and she had been residing at her parents house. The defendant has also neglected the plaintiff Baby Mannat Bansal since her birth. He has not given a single penny on account of maintenance and medical expenses to the plaintiffs.
3. It was contended that Smt. Vinita Bansal is not working anywhere and has no source of income. The defendant is a man of means, status and having sources of income, assets, movable immovable properties and the plaintiffs are entitled to live as per the status of the defendant. It was contended that the defendant is carrying on the business of sales and purchase of scrap/ waste papers of different types, which he supplies from Delhi, Haryana, Rajsthan to Paper Mills at Muzaffarnagar, U.P. He is having its office at 93-B, S.P. Complex, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. and is earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Two telephones have been installed in the said office.
4. It was contended that the defendant is co-owner of the two and a half storied residential house in Muzaffarnagar, value of which is about 15,00,000/-. A telephone has also been installed in his house. Furthermore, the defendant is using one Reliance India Mobile Phone which was given to the defendant 3 on demand. He is also having a Garud Mobile Phone. He is an income tax payee and also having a number of LIC Policies and is paying huge premium. Besides he is having two cars one Maruti 800 and one Indica which were purchased 8-10 days before her marriage in the name of the father in law of Smt. Vinita Bansal on installment basis. The defendant is also having a Pulsar Motorcycle which was given to him before marriage.
5. It was further contended that the defendant is having several bank accounts at Muzaffarnagar and Delhi and is also having a Credit Card of ICICI Bank. Presently he is residing in a rented accommodation at Rohini in Delhi. The defendant has also having deposits in the shape of FDRs, shares and bonds etc. It was contended that the defendant is the only son and has no other liability except to maintain the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it has been prayed that interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the decision of the suit be granted in favour of both the plaintiffs.
6. All the contentions raised in the applications have been denied on behalf of the defendant. It was contended that the plaintiff Smt. Vinita Bansal is earning about Rs.5,000/- per month in tuitions as she has done M.A. in English from Delhi University. She is an able bodied young lady and has capacity to 4 earn. She also have movable and immovable properties which she has intentionally conceal. The defendant has denied that he has doing any business in the name and style of M/s Shiv Shakti Sugar Company at Muzaffarnagar or earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He has denied that two telephones have been installed at any of the said office. He has further denied of having two card or several bank accounts, ICICI Credit Cards, Shares, Bonds etc.
7. It was contended that he has a few LIC Policies and is paying the premium to get benefit in the income tax and had only one Saving bank account in State Bank of India in Muzaffarnagar in which the balance is of Rs. 1,000/-. It is also contended that Pulsar Motorcycle had been purchased by the plaintiff Smt. Vinita Bansal who is the owner of the same. It was contended that the defendant that he is doing the work of commission agent and is earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus, he is not liable to make any payments.
8. Per contra on behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended that the plaintiffs have moved an application under order 11 rule 14 CPC for production of the documents in possession of the defendant. The defendant was directed to furnish an affidavit and in the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant also he has 5 deliberately concealed the required information and documents so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. It was contended that the court can asses the income of the defendant from the documents placed on record and award the interim maintenance as prayed for. In support of these contentions the following judgments have been cited on behalf of the plaintiffs.
(i) Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge Dehradun and Others - (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7.
(ii) Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta - 1987 MLR 306 (Calcutta High Court).
(iii) Rita Dutta & Another Vs. Subhendu Dutta - VI (2005) SLT 235 (SC).
(iv) Smt. Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra -
AIR 1994 Delhi 234.
(v) Smt. Renu Jain Vs. Mahavir Prashad Jain - AIR 1987 Delhi 43.
(vi) A.S. Ramdass Vs. N. Malathi - II (1999) DMC 748 (Madras High Court).
(vii) Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra - 110 (2004) Delhi Law Times 546 (Delhi High Court).
(viii) Kishan Dutt Verma Vs. Baby Parul -- 110 (2004) Delhi Law Times 703 (Delhi High Court).
(ix) S.S. Bindra Vs. Tarvinder Kaur - (2005) I Femi-6
Juris C.C. 350 (Delhi High Court).
(x) Tilak Kumari and Anr. Vs. Anand - 92 (2001) Delhi Law Times 394 (Delhi High Court).
(xi) M. Ravishankar Vs. R. Pushpa -- I (1998) DMC 197 (Karnataka High Court).
(xii) R. Suresh Vs. Smt. Chandra M.A. -- 2003 (I) Civil Court Cases 675 (Karnataka High Court).
9. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that relief to grant interim maintenance is a discriminate relief and the court has to consider various factors before granting such relief. It was contended that the fact cannot be ignored that the wife of the defendant has a tendency to increase the income of her house in order to claim maintenance from him. It was further contended that whatever income the defendant is drawing the relevant documents have been produced in the court and since he is not the owner of the cars, business or the house thus, he cannot say that in the name of which persons the cars or the house is registered and he is not required to produce its title deeds. In support of these contentions the following judgments have been cited on behalf of the defendant.
(i) Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others - (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7.7
(ii) Surinder Katyal Vs. Vaneet Rani - I (1991) DMG
334.
(iii) Gita Chatterjee Vs. Probhat Kumar Chatterjee -
AIR 1998 Calcutta 83.
(iv) Ashit Mukherjee Vs. Smt. Susmita Mukherjee and another - AIR 1987 Calcutta 153.
(v) Hema Vs. Lakshmana Bhat - AIR 1986 Kerala 130.
10. In Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge Dehradun and Others (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "Maintenance should permit reasonable comfort to the wife and ability to prosecute her case, yet should not be excessive or extortionate - Assessment of income of husband - Where diverse claims made by the parties, some conjectures and guess work by court permissible - Attempt by the husband to conceal his true income would justify adverse inference by court about his stated income."
11. In Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta (Supra) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that, "Husband's income would be within special knowledge of husband - Onus on husband to disclose his true and correct income - His failure to disclose same without good reasons 8 entitles the court to presume against him and accept the allegations of wife as to amount of his income."
12. In Rita Dutta & Another Vs. Subhendu Dutta (Supra) Hon'ble Court has held that, "The respondent had not disclosed his true income. He has failed to produce the balance sheet as well as profit and loss account which could show his real income."
13. In Smt. Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra (Supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, "Assets acquired by husband were out of joint family business run under name and style of firm - Income of said firm should be taken into account not only to determine husband's status but for fixing quantum of interim maintenance."
14. In Smt. Renu Jain Vs. Mahavir Prashad Jain Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, "Husband suppressing income - Evidence of wife regarding income of husband should be looked into - Also, properties of husband and his joint family and their business and special status should be considered."
15. In A.S. Ramdass Vs. N. Malathi (Supra) Hon'ble 9 Madras High Court has held that, "When the wife comes forward with an application under that Act, and she says that she is unable to maintain herself and as no independent income for her support, it is for the opposite party to prove the contrary."
16. In Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra (Supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, "Factors to be considered by Court: Satisfactory approach would be to divide family Resources Cake in 2 portions to husband since he has to incur extra expenses in course of making his earning and one share each to other members."
17. In Kishan Dutt Verma Vs. Baby Parul (Supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, "Assuming appellant requires 50% of amout for himself, it would ba appropriate if he pays balance 50% of amount to his wife and children towards their maintenance."
18. In S.S. Bindra Vs. Tarvinder Kaur (Supra) Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that, "Payment of maintenance @ 60& made effective from 01.03.2003 - Husband is entitled to retain only 40% if Vohra's case is applied - Dependants of husband are entitled to live in accordance with his status - Orders should be passed keeping present in perspective and 10 bring about justice between parties - Court doesn't grant exactly what is prayed for, but usually much less- Court even not precluded to grant more."
19. In M. Ravishankar Vs. R. Pushpa (Supra) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has observed that, "Loans such as F.A., LIC premium, PF Loan, etc. not to be taken into account." It is further observed that, "Some of the loans such as F.A., LIC premium, PF Loan etc. cannot be taken into account for the purpose of determining the resources of the petitioner."
20. In Surinder Katyal Vs. Vaneet Rani (Supra) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that, "Matrimonial Course on appreciation of evidence assessed income of husband at Rs. 7500/- per month - Allowed Rs. 2225/- per month as maintenance to wife and two children - No infirmity in the order."
21. In Gita Chatterjee Vs. Probhat Kumar Chatterjee (Supra) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has observed that, "work "income"in Section 24 does not include capital assets like lands and hereditaments - It includes only return according from those assets - Property not presently yielding any income is not included in it."
1122. In Ashit Mukherjee Vs. Smt. Susmita Mukherjee and another (Supra) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has observed that, "Moreover, under section 24, however, the matter which must be considered by the court is the income actually earned by the parties and not what a party could have earned by putting in more labour, capital and all that Case law discussed."
23. In Hema Vs. Lakshmana Bhat (Supra) Hon'be Kerala High Court has observed that, "Only income and not other property is required to be considered."
24. Although the defendant has denied that he is doing any business or fact that he is having any telephones etc. But the photocopies of the documents have been placed on record which shows that the plaintiff is doing business for a Mill in the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Sugar Company. Photocopies of various telephone bills have also been placed on record which are in the name of defendant. Photocopy of invitation card of marriage of sister of the defendant has been placed on record which shows the address of M/s Shiv Shakti Sugar Company having various telephone numbers. Furthermore, photocopies of the rent agreement of apartment at Rohini between the defendant and the landlord has been filed on record. According to which the 12 defendant was paying a monthly rent @ Rs. 4,500/- per month in the year 2003. the defendant himself has placed on record the copies of his statement of account which though shows the balance of Rs. 1,000/- as on 05.01.2001 but there are various cash entires in the account for Rs. 20,000/- and above in the period of 2002-2003. Moreover, he has been paying a premium of Rs. 1200/- each for two policies for Rs. 20,634/-, Rs. 24,472/- for various other policies. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant is not a man of means. However, since, correct statement of accounts as well as the income has not been disclosed on behalf of the defendant which can only be decided after leading evidence of the parties. But still it cannot be ignored that since the defendant is capable of paying rent, premium of various policies and there is a family business of the defendant thus, he is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each per month as maintenance to both the plaintiffs from the date of filing of the application till disposal of the suit. The arrears of the maintenance be paid within two months from the date of this order. Copy of this order be placed on the other file. The applications of the plaintiffs stands disposed of. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 09.02.2007.
(SHALINDER KAUR) ADDL. DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DELHI.
13 1409.02.2007.
At 1.20 pm.
Present :- None.
No further arguments addressed.
Vide order announced of even date on separate sheets, the defendant is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each per month as maintenance to both the plaintiffs from the date of filing of the application till disposal of the suit. The arrears of the maintenance be paid within two months from the date of this order. The applications of the plaintiffs stands disposed of.
Put up for PE on 10.04.07.
ADJ:DELHI.
09.02.2007.