Delhi District Court
Sheetal Nagar vs Satendra Kumar Bhati on 31 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 238/2022
CNR No.: DLCT01-015281-2022
Sheetal Nagar
W/o Sh. Satendra Kumar Bhati
R/o D-99, Sector-105, Noida
Uttar Pradesh-201 308
..... Appellant
VERSUS
1. Satendra Kumar Bhati
S/o Sh. Karamveer Singh
2. Yogendra Kumar
S/o Sh. Karamveer Singh
3. Mukesh Devi
W/o Sh. Karamveer Singh
4. Karamveer Singh
S/o Sh. Khachedu
All Residents of:
H. No. 15, Village Gopalpur
PO Sikandarabad Industrial Area
PS Sikandarabad, Bulandshahr
Uttar Pradesh-203 205
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.11.2022
Date of Arguments : 21.01.2023
Date of Judgment : 31.01.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The criminal appeal under Section 29 of 'The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005' (Hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act') is directed against order dated 07.09.2022 (In short 'the impugned order') in complaint vide CC No. 7589/2019 titled as 'Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors.' whereby Ld. MM-03 (Mahila Court), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (In short 'the trial Court') declined interim reliefs under Section 23 DV Act.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 1 of 19 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 23 (2) DV ACT:
2. Before delving into the issues involved in this criminal appeal, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the prayers made in application under Section 23 (2) DV Act, as under:
"5. That in such circumstances, Hon'ble Court is requested to pass an Ex-parte order, directing the Respondents:
i. To secure same level of alternate accommodation to the complainant as enjoyed by her in shared household; or a. To pay rent @ Rs. 30,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.06.2019; and b. To pay an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- as arrears of rent @ Rs. 12,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2016 to 31.05.2019;
ii. To execute bond that the respondents shall not extend any threat to the complainant;
iii. To pay Rs. 10,50,000/- with interest @ 3% per month from the date of payment to the respondent No. 2 vide RTGS;
iv. To pay maintenance w.e.f. 01.12.2016 to 31.05.2019;
v. To pay an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- as medical Expenses @ Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2016 to 31.05.2019.
vi. To pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation expenses."
BRIEF FACTS:
3. On 18.07.2019, the appellant (In short 'the complainant') filed an application under Section 12 DV Act for seeking reliefs, inter alia, under Section 18 (d), (e), (f), 19 (I), (f), 19 (3), 19 (6), 19 (8), 20 and 22 DV Act alongwith the said application under Section 23 (2) DV Act.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 2 of 19
4. The case of the complainant is that on 15.12.2015, the respondent No. 4 had taken the complainant's father and relatives to Shree Cement Plant and represented that the respondent No. 1 was employed as a 'Project Engineer' with Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. (GDCL), UPSIDC, Sikandarabad, U.P. The respondent No. 4 had also shown appointment letter and pay slip of the respondent No. 1. The complainant was married with the respondent No. 1 on 22.02.2016. In the marriage, an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- besides other items was gifted by the complainant's invitees in 'kanyadaan'. At the time of 'bidai', the respondent No. 4 demanded an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- by way of cheque on the pretext that the said cheque was required to demonstrate his social position. He further represented that the said cheque will not be presented for encashment. As such, the complainant's father issued the said Cheque No. 035640 dated 22.02.2016 in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the name of the respondent No. 2 drawn on 'State Bank of India, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh' (In short 'the said cheque').
5. The case of the complainant is that the respondents subjected her to physical, mental, economic, verbal and emotional abuse since her marriage. Instead of returning the said cheque, the respondents pressurized her to ask her father to pay them an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. On 23.02.2016, the respondent No. 1 snatched keys of her almirah containing jewellery worth Rs. 18,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/-
received in 'kanyadaan'. The respondent No. 1 threatened the complainant to make a call to her father and demand an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- for his government job.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 3 of 19
6. The respondent No. 3 and 4 stated that they would sell her jewellery worth Rs. 18,00,000/- and invest in 'Gayatri Construction Company'. The respondent No. 3 and 4 compelled the complainant to ask her father to give money and plots to the respondent No. 1. On 24.02.2016, the respondents showed two rifles to the complainant and threatened to kill her, her father and brothers in order to compel her to bring money from her father for government job of the respondent No. 1. The complainant's father borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and transferred it via RTGS to her account in Bank of India on 24.02.2016. The respondents threatened the complainant not to disclose torture to anyone while she was going to her paternal house on 25.02.2016. The respondent No. 1 mentally harassed the complainant by sending text messages while the complainant was in her paternal house from 26.02.2016 to 29.02.2016. Due to threats extended by the respondents, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the account of the respondent No. 2 via RTGS on 03.03.2016. The respondents further demanded cash amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, branded clothes and 25 rings while the complainant was going to her paternal house on holi. The complainant's father borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and given the said amount to the respondent No. 4 on 24.03.2016. The respondents did not provide her treatment for emotional distress on account of harassment given by them. The respondents physically assaulted and driven her to courtyard on 20.04.2016 and thereafter, the complainant's father borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and given the said amount to the respondent No. 4 on 25.04.2016. The respondents further subjected her to torture and abetted her to commit suicide.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 4 of 19
7. According to the complainant, the respondents attempted to kill her twice. Firstly, the respondent No. 1 tried to push her to canal on way to Gopalpur. Secondly, the respondents poured kerosene oil upon her. The respondent No. 4 attempted to rape her. The respondents promised to spare her subject to transfer of YEIDA plot to them. On 14/15.05.2016, the respondents physically assaulted and threatened the complainant. On 16.05.2016, the complainant managed to call her cousin and thereafter, the complainant alongwith her father went to her paternal house.
8. It is further case of the complainant that on 24.07.2016, the respondent No. 4 and his associates threatened her father to withdraw FIR. The respondent No. 4 and his associates followed them on 17.01.2018 to District Court, Bulandshahr, U.P. The respondent No. 4 and Pawan Sharma assaulted the complainant's father on 05.08.2018. The complainant's father had borrowed the said amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- on interest @ Rs. 60,000/- per month. The complainant's stridhan is with the respondents. The complainant's cash amount, gold and silver ornaments, domestic appliances and clothes including amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- are with the respondents. The complainant could not deposit amount with YEIDA in respect of plot No. 5D, Sector-18, Greater Noida, U.P. as the respondents had taken her 'kanyadaan' in the sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- and thereby, she incurred loss in the sum of Rs. 2,57,000/- on account of compound interest @ 18% till 31.05.2019. The complainant's father had paid interest in the sum of Rs. 23,08,000/- on account of interest @ Rs. 60,000/- per month on amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- borrowed by him.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 5 of 19
9. It is further case of the complainant that she has done M. Pharma. The respondent No. 1 is residing in a house built upto two storeys on a land measuring 500 sq. meters and has car and all facilities therein. The respondent No. 1 is drawing salary of Rs. 65,000/- per month. The respondents are earning Rs. 1,35,000/- per month from her stridhan.
10. In reply, the respondent No. 1 contended that he has not inflicted any cruelty upon the complainant. He contended that the complainant made his life miserable and filed this case to extort money from him. The complainant was pressurizing the respondent No. 1 to stay in city. The complainant's father and the respondent No. 1's father were friends. Before the marriage, the complainant's father had taken a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from his father and the complainant's father had returned the said loan by transferring the amount to the account of the complainant. The complainant is residing in her parental house in G-116, Beta-II, Greater Noida, U.P. The complainant is not residing in a rented accommodation. The complainant left matrimonial house alongwith her entire jewellery. The respondent No. 1 contended that the complainant is holding a degree in M. Pharma and she is running a medical store and earning considerable amount. The complainant is also providing tuitions and earning Rs. 60,000/- per month from teaching. The complainant was earlier teaching in Central School, Greater Noida and receiving salary in the sum of Rs. 21,250/- per month. The respondent No. 1 is unemployed. The complainant implicated the respondent No. 1 in false criminal cases and for that reason, his employer terminated his services. The respondent No. 1 denied the averments pertaining to physical or other abuses, as stated by the complainant.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 6 of 19 IMPUGNED ORDER:
11. The relevant part of impugned order is as under:
"13. Considering the documents placed on record by both the parties the income of respondent No. 1 is presumed to be not less than Rs. 80,000/- per month. But as the maintenance amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month has already been granted under Section 125 CrPC, undersigned does not deem it fit to grant further maintenance amount to the complainant.
14. The composite reliefs have been sought by the counsel for the complainant in the application u/s 23 of DV Act. Both the sides have raised the contentious claimed and at this stage, plea taken by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 cannot be rejected at the threshold. The veracity of the allegations of the complainant / respondent No. 1 is a matter of trial and the same can be decided after the leading of evidence. Therefore, other reliefs sought by the complainant i.e. medical expenses, compensation etc. in her application under Section 23 DV Act are not being granted at this stage as the undersigned deems it fit to decide them after the leading of evidence.
15. Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount as any expression of opinion upon the merits of the case. The amount paid towards maintenance in other proceedings shall stand adjusted. Interim maintenance application is accordingly disposed off."
CRIMINAL APPEAL:
12. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the complainant sought following reliefs:
1. An amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- be awarded to the complainant;
a. Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent under Section 19(f) DV Act;
b. The respondents be directed to discharge obligations pertaining to rent and arrears of rent under Section 19(6) DV Act;
c. Lump-sum amount as maintenance under Section 20(3) DV Act;
d. Medical expenses;
e. Litigation expenses;
ii. The respondent No. 2 be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- alongwith interest from the date of RTGS."
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 7 of 19 APPEARANCE:
13. I have heard Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Satbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents and perused written arguments filed by the complainant and examined trial Court record.
CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
14. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the trial Court neither considered documents nor written submissions filed by the complainant. He contended that there is credible material that the complainant's father transferred an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the account of the complainant on 24.02.2016 (statement of bank account of the complainant as AP-
4) and further, the complainant transferred the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the account of the respondent No. 2 (certificate dated 20.11.2017 issued by Bank of India as AP-7). He contended that the said bank statement of the account of the complainant maintained with Bank of India and certificate issued by Bank of India and statement of account of the respondent No. 2 maintained with Punjab National Bank were verified by police. He contended that there are text messages between the period from 26.02.2016 to 29.02.2016 regarding threats extended by the respondent No. 1 for dowry demands. He contended that the trial Court did not follow the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. He contended that the respondent No. 1 has not paid interim maintenance since March, 2022 to May, 2022. He contended that the trial Court did not consider the documents demonstrating income of the respondent No. 1 as Rs. 11,00,000/- per month.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 8 of 19
15. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that GDCL has given several projects to 'Gayatri Construction Company'. He contended that the trial Court wrongly denied maintenance to the complainant w.e.f. 01.12.2016 to 31.05.2019. He contended that the complainant had to borrow amount on interest @ 3% per annum since 01.12.2016 to maintain herself. He contended that the trial Court has not granted any amount towards rent in lieu of right to residence in the shared household. He contended that the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. as rent for alternate accommodation. He contended that the complainant has filed a rent agreement dated 26.02.2021 whereby she had taken H. No. 63, Gali No. 2, Jagat Pur, Delhi- 110084 on rent @ Rs. 15,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2020. He contended that the complainant's landlord got the said rented accommodation vacated in October, 2022 as the complainant was not able to make payment of rent and she started residing with her parents. He contended that the complainant had to pay compound interest to avoid cancellation of her YEIDA plot as her stridhan i.e. 'kanyadaan' is wrongfully retained by the respondent No. 3. He contended that the complainant is entitled to maintenance commensurate to status & income of the respondent No. 1. He contended that the respondent No. 1 has ancestral properties, agricultural land, residential / commercial building and mobile towers. He contended that the respondent No. 1 is receiving rent from the said premises and tele communication companies. He contended that the respondent No. 1 is a director of 'Gayatri Construction Co.'. He contended that the respondent No. 2 is managing director and the respondent No. 4 is a managing partner of 'Gayatri Construction Co.'.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 9 of 19
16. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that 'Gayatri Construction Company' is a joint family business of the respondents. He contended that the said company paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as tax. He contended that the respondent No. 1 has income of Rs. 3,02,400/- per month from agricultural, residential, industrial and commercial properties. He contended that income of the said company was around Rs. 1,65,34,000/- in the year 2018-19 and therefore, the share of the respondent No. 1 would be around Rs. 50,00,000/- in financial year 2018-19. He contended that as such, income of the respondent No. 1 is Rs. 11,18,000/- per month. He contended that the respondents are affluent persons and they have several luxury cars and motorcycles. He contended that the complainant is entitled to interim maintenance commensurate to the standard of living and life style which she was enjoying with the respondent No. 1. He contended that the respondent No. 1 be directed to secure the same level of alternate accommodation as she enjoyed in shared household or to pay rent @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. He contended that the respondent No. 1 be directed to pay arrears of rent and arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per month. He contended that the respondent No. 2 be directed to return an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- alongwith interest from the date of RTGS. He contended that the complainant is entitled to medical expenses @ Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
17. Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. He contended that the impugned order is a reasoned order.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19
18. Ld. Counsel for the respondents contended that the complainant's father had taken an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-
from the respondent No. 4 which he had returned after marriage. He contended that the complainant is a permanent resident of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and she invoked the jurisdiction of this Court just to harass the respondents. He contended that the reliefs prayed by the complainant are not in the nature of interim relief and they cannot be granted at this stage without taking evidence of the parties. He contended that there is no merit in the appeal. LAW:
19. Section 23 (2) DV Act is as under:
"23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders.- (1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.
(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent."
20. It would be appropriate to deal with the contentions of the complainant, in terms of the prayer made in the application under Section 23 (2) DV Act. RESIDENCE ORDER OR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- IN LIEU OF RIGHT TO RESIDENCE IN SHARED HOUSEHOLD:
21. The case of the complainant is that the respondents subjected to her domestic violence in shared household and pursuant thereto, she had left the shared household on 14.05.2016.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 11 of 19
22. According to the complainant, she was residing in her parental house and thereafter, she was residing in a rented accommodation @ Rs. 15,000/- per month in H. No. 63, Gali No. 2, Jagat Pur, Delhi-110084 w.e.f. 01.10.2020. However, she was unable to make payment of rent on account of financial constraint and thereafter, she started residing in her parental house.
23. The complainant is entitled to right to residence in shared household. In any other case, she is entitled to rent for a similarly situated accommodation in lieu of her right to residence. The complainant is a resident of Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P. Her shared household is situated in Sikandarabad, Bulandshahr, U.P. There is no evidence that rent of similarly situated premises in Sikandarabad or Gautam Budh Nagar would be Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, she is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent for alternate accommodation w.e.f. date of filing of the petition till decision of the petition.
AMOUNT OF RS. 3,60,000/- TOWARDS ARREARS OF RENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.12.2016 TO 31.05.2019 @ RS. 12,000/- PER MONTH:
24. The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- towards arrears of rent @ Rs. 12,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2016 to 31.05.2019 under Section 19 (6) DV Act.
25. Section 19 (6) DV Act is as under:
"(6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties."
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 12 of 19
26. Section 19 (6) DV Act provides that obligation relating to discharge of rent and other payments can be imposed upon the respondent. In that regard, she relied on rent agreements executed on 17.09.2018, 16.07.2019 and 26.02.2021. However, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The said Family Court has passed an order directing the respondent No. 1 to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 10.01.2017 vide order dated 25.05.2022. Therefore, the claim of the complainant for the said period is included in the said maintenance awarded by the said Family Court. DIRECTION FOR EXECUTION OF BOND TO PREVENT COMMISSION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
27. The complainant is residing with her parents.
Moreover, there is no material that the respondents threatened the complainant or endangered her safety and security. Therefore, no such direction can be issued to the respondents to execute bond to prevent commission of domestic violence. DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF RS.
10,50,000/- ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 3% PER MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RTGS U/SEC. 19 (8) DV ACT:
28. The complainant stated that she had transferred an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the account of the respondent No. 2 on 03.03.2016. She also stated that her father transferred an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the account of the respondent No. 2 on 19.12.2015. The case of the complainant is that her father transferred the said amount to her account pursuant to demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- by the respondent No. 2 as dowry. It is further case of the complainant that her father had borrowed the said amount on interest @ Rs. 60,000/- per month.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 13 of 19
29. The case set-up by the respondent No. 1 is that the complainant's father and the respondent No. 4 were friends.
The case of the respondent No. 1 is that before the marriage, the complainant's father had borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent No. 4 and after the marriage, the complainant's father returned the said amount by way of transfer to the account of the complainant. Therefore, there is need of evidence regarding the nature and purpose of transaction. At this interim stage, it cannot be said that the said amount was given to the respondent No. 2 as dowry. Therefore, no direction can be given to the respondent No. 2 to return the amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 19 (8) DV Act. DIRECTION FOR LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.12.2016 TO 31.05.2019 UNDER SECTION 20 (3) DV ACT:
30. The complainant is claiming lump sum payment of maintenance for the period from 01.12.2016 to 31.05.2019 under Section 20 (3) DV Act.
31. Section 20 (3) DV Act is as under:
"(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
32. The said section provides that the Magistrate has power to order lump sum payment of maintenance or monthly payment of maintenance. It does not provide that the Magistrate at the interim stage can order lump sum payment of arrears of maintenance for the period anterior to the institution of the petition. However, the Magistrate has power to grant appropriate monetary relief at the time of final disposal of the petition.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 14 of 19 MEDICAL EXPENSES:
33. The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- towards medical expenses @ Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2016. In that regard, the complainant has filed copy of two prescriptions dated 17.02.2016 and 05.05.2016 (as AP-3). A perusal of the prescription dated 05.05.2016 would show that there is mention of 'stress factor'. However, it does not state the nature of the ailment. There is no medical bills or medical record pertaining to treatment of the complainant for depression, anxiety or stress. In the absence of any medical record pertaining to any medical ailment or treatment or expenses thereon, no such relief can be granted.
LITIGATION EXPENSES:
34. Any order pertaining to litigation expenses can only be passed at the final stage of the case. In order to seek the litigation expenses, the complainant must prove that she was an aggrieved person and she was subjected to domestic violence. The complainant cannot be granted litigation expenses at this stage.
QUANTUM OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE:
35. The complainant, in her 'income and expenditure' affidavit, stated that she is holding degrees in M. Pharma, B.Ed and LLB. She claimed her expenditure as Rs. 64,162/- per month. The respondent No. 1 is holding degree in B.Tech (Civil Engineer). She is seeking an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards food and clothing. The respondent No. 1, in 'income and expenditure' affidavit, stated that he is unemployed. According to Income Tax Return, total income of the respondent No. 1 in the assessment year 2016-17 was Rs. 2,68,640/-.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 15 of 19
36. According to Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, total income of the respondent No. 1 was Rs. 2,65,734/-, Rs. 2,77,374 and Rs. 2,67,409/-. The respondent No. 1 was employed as 'Project Engineer' with 'Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd.'. His gross salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month vide salary slip for the month of April, 2016. His service was terminated w.e.f. 18.05.2016 vide letter dated 29.06.2016.
37. The complainant has relied upon pages downloaded from facebook account of the respondent No. 1 representing himself as 'Director' of 'Gayatri Construction Company'. The complainant has also relied on his facebook account to show his standard of living. The complainant has further relied upon pages downloaded from website of 'Gayatri Construction Company' to show that 'Gayatri Construction Company' is engaged in executing several commercial, industrial and residential projects. She relied on pages downloaded from Goods and Service Tax Department pertaining to deposit of GST vide GSTIN/UIN:09AZTTD1248H1Z6 in respect of 'Gayatri Construction Company', a proprietorship of the respondent No. 3 for 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. On that basis, Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that income of 'Gayatri Construction Company' was around Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in financial year 2015-16, Rs. 1,18,00,000/- in financial year 2017- 18 and Rs. 1,65,34,000/- in financial year 2018-19. He contended that income of the respondent No. 1 was around Rs. 55,11,000/- in financial year 2018-19. He contended that income of the respondent No.1 from real estate business was around Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from 02.12.2019 to 28.09.2020.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 16 of 19
38. Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on statements of bank accounts of the respondent No. 1 maintained with PNB and HDFC in that regard. He contended that income of the respondent No. 1 is around Rs. 11,18,000/- per month. He contended that the respondent No. 1 is retaining stridhan of the complainant and invested it into 'Gayatri Construction Company' and earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.
39. Besides pages downloaded from facebook account and website of 'Gayatri Construction Company', there is no material pertaining to income of 'Gayatri Construction Company' or the respondent No. 1. There is no credible material that the respondent No. 1 is earning around Rs. 11,00,000/- per month. Statements of bank account of the respondent No. 1 reflect some entries pertaining to credit of amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- to his account. However, such isolated entries are not sufficient to raise prima facie inference of monthly income of the respondent No. 1. This Court does not find any manifest error in assessment of monthly income of the respondent No. 1 as Rs. 80,000/- per month.
40. The complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards rent in lieu of right to residence in the shared household. The amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards food, clothing, medical expenses, transport, electricity, communication etc. would be just and reasonable. Interim maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/- per month is just and reasonable.
41. The Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. has granted maintenance to the complainant @ Rs. 50,000/- per month. This Court does not find any material on record for enhancement of interim maintenance.
Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 17 of 19
42. In view of academic qualifications, status of the parties and standard of living of the complainant and the respondent No. 1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly observed that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant awarding of further maintenance amount to the complainant.
CONCLUSION:
43. This Court does not find any legal infirmity, perversity or manifest jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
44. A copy of judgment alongwith trial Court record be sent back to trial Court.
45. The criminal appeal file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.01.31 13:35:34 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 31st January, 2023 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 18 of 19 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. CNR No.: DLCT01-015281-2022 Crl. Appeal No. 238/2022 31.01.2023 Present : Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant (through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Satbir Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
Vide separate judgment, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The criminal appeal file Digitally signed be consigned to record room. by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.01.31 13:35:50 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II ASJ-03, Central District Tis Hazari Courts Delhi 31.01.2023 Crl. Appl. No. 238/2022 Sheetal Nagar vs. Satendra Kumar Bhati & Ors. Page No. 19 of 19