Delhi District Court
Shwetank Chadha vs Geetanjali Chadha on 30 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDRA SINGH :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ELECTRICITY),
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
CNR No.DLNW01-001275-2024
CA NO.40/2024
Shri Shwetank Chadha
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Chadha
R/o H.No. 149, Gopal Park, Jamuna Park,
Geeta Colony, Delhi.
....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Geetanjali Chadha
W/o Sh. Shwetank Chadha
Resident of H.No.A-45, Second Floor,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
...Respondent
Date of Institution : 13.02.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 20.07.2024
Date of judgment : 30.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'PWDV Act') against the judgment dated CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.1 of 19 05.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment') passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Court-01, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC no.582/04, titled as Geetanjali vs. Shwetank Chadha under Section 12 of the PWDV Act whereby the application filed by the respondent/ wife (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") under Sec. 12 of PWDV Act has been allowed against the appellant/husband ( hereinafter referred to as "respondent"). The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference :
"..... From the comprehensive perusal of income affidavit of petitioner and R-1 and under circumstances as discussed above and in the absence of any documentary proof regarding the income of R-1, the income of R-1 shall be assessed as per the rate of minimum wages prevailing in the NCT of Delhi which is Rs.20,000/- (apprx. per month). In view of above and after considering the rate of minimum wages prevailing in Nct of Delhi, income of R-1 is assessed as Rs.20,000/- per month.
13. Regarding the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the petitioner, it is noticed that it is alleged by the petitioner that R-1 owns four shops, gets rental income and also owns one Chevrolet Car worth Rs.17 lacs in order to show the lifestyle of R-1. However, apart from the bald averments, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner in order to prove the luxurious life enjoyed by R-1 as alleged by her. After perusal of the material available on record and considering the financial as well as the social status of the parties etc, this court is of the opinion that payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.2 of 19 will meet the interest of justice. Accordingly, R-1 is directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner which is inclusive of medical expenses, water, electricity and the rent from date of the present application till she is entitled to be maintained by him as per law. The money, if any, received by the petitioner from R-1 towards maintenance, granted by any Hon'ble Court, shall be adjusted. The maintenance amount be paid on or before the 10th of each month. Arrears shall be cleared within a time of six months from today.
.. 17. Petitioner has further sought compensation of Rs.5 lacs for loss caused to her mental and physical injury caused by R-1. It is the obligation of R-1, R-1 being the husband of the petitioner to let her live in a healthy environment which should be free from domestic violence. But he failed to do so. The instant application was filed in the year 2014. Considerable time and money of the petitioner has also been consumed in prosecuting the application. During her evidence, petitioner has successfully established that she was subject to harassment by R-1. Hence, R-1 is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in total to the petitioner as compensation for the harassment suffered by her due to domestic violence as well as for loss of time and money spent in prosecuting the instant application. .."
2. Notice of the appeal is issued to the complainant/wife and the she has entered her appearance, TCR has been received and arguments have been heard.
CA No.40/2024Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.3 of 19 Allegations as contained in the application filed under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act :-
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant got married to the respondent on 02.06.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Her father had spent huge amount in the said marriage and gave cash, jewellery and other articles to the in-laws of complainant. It is the case of the complainant that after marriage, all her jewelry articles were taken by mother-in-law and she did not return the same to the complainant despite her repeated request. The in-laws of the complainant were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in the said marriage and they had started harassing, beating and abusing the complainant on account of bringing insufficient dowry. Respondents threatened the complainant to bring Rs.6 lacs from her father failing which, she was beaten again and again. That in June, 2013, complainant brought a sum of Rs.3 lacs from her father and gave it to respondent however, after some time, respondent again started beating and demanded more money from her. That on 26.08.2013, complainant made a complaint to SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh against respondent for beating her to bring gold set for his Nani and also LED TV. It is further the case of the complainant that respondent is a drunkard and used to quarrel with other persons after taking liquor. That on 30.08.2013, he was also arrested under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. for giving beatings to some persons under the influence of alcohol. That the respondent is also having illicit relation with a girl and when the complainant objected to same, she was given beatings by respondent. In the midnight of 02/03/11.2013 at around 12 midnight, respondent along with his driver came to the matrimonial house and gave CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.4 of 19 beatings and abused the complainant and her brother who was present there being Diwali Eve and thereafter, a case under Sec. 323/506/509/34 IPC was registered on 06.11.2023 on the complaint of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
4. DIR was filed. The respondent/ husband as well as the respondent no.2 & 3 in D.V. petition were summoned vide order dated 24.02.2014 and respondent no.1 to 3 (herein called as respondents) their appearance and Written Statement along with reply to the application of the complainant under Sec. 23 of D.V. Act. wherein they denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them.
5. During the course of proceedings, vide order dated 05.10.2018, respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 & 3 in D.V. petition were proceeded ex-parte and matter was listed for ex-parte PE.
During ex-parte PE, complainant tendered her evidence as Ex.CW1/A relied upon the documents i.e. a) Copy of DD no.3A dated 30.08.2013 as Mark-A, b) Copy of complaint to SHO dated 26.08.2013 as Mark-B, c) Copy of FIR No.451/13, PS Shalimar Bagh, u/s 323/506/509/34 IPC as Mark-C, d) Copy of MLC of complainant of DJRMA Hospital dated 05.01.2013 a Mark-D. Sh. Vijay Khurana, Father of the complainant was examined as CW-2 and discharged.
Complainant also tendered her additional evidence by way of affidavit as CW1/1A and relied upon the documents i.e. 1) copy of orders as Mark E(Colly.), 2) certified copy of purchase deed as Mark F and 3) Certified copy of purchase deed as Mark G. Thereafter, ex-parte PE was closed.
CA No.40/2024Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.5 of 19 Submissions by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant / Respondent:-
6. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that the findings of the Ld. Trial Court are contrary to law and facts. That the Ld. Trial Court has calculated the income of the respondent as Rs.20,000/-
per month and the complainant has been awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month which is on higher side. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the maintenance amount of Rs.6,700/- should have been awarded. It is further submitted that complainant has not disclosed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to her by the respondent as per order dated 18.12.2014 wherein it was held that the said amount shall be adjustable at the time of final settlement and therefore, the said amount is liable to be deducted /set off. However, he is not pressing this ground as the complainant has taken the same defence before the Ld. Trial Court in execution petition. It is further submitted that compensation amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant is unjustified as the respondent is not responsible for delaying the proceedings as he was proceeded as ex-parte vide order dated 05.10.2018 and the impugned order in the instant matter has been passed on 05.01.2023 therefore, the said amount of compensation should be reduced.
It is prayed that the present appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside.
Submissions on behalf of the Complainant / wife :-
7. It is submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and does not demand any interference. It is further submitted that the present appeal has been filed by the respondent just to CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.6 of 19 create undue pressure on the complainant/wife. The impugned order vide which an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded in favour of the complainant needs not to be disturbed. It is further submitted that the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which has been awarded as compensation amount has been passed after recording the reasons in the impugned order therefore, it does not demand any interference and therefore, the present appeal should be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
8. Detailed arguments have been heard from both sides. Certain judgments have been filed on behalf of the respondent and same have now been duly considered.
The Position in Law:-
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
9. The Provision of the D.V. Act which are relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are extracted as under :
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) 'aggrieved person' means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
(s) 'shared household' means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.7 of 19 jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.
3. Definition of domestic violence --For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--
(i) 'physical abuse' means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) 'sexual abuse' includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) 'verbal and emotional abuse' includes-
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) 'economic abuse' includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.8 of 19 but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, Stridhana, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her Stridhana or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes 'domestic violence' under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.
12. Application to Magistrate--(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any Domestic Incident Report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for under Sub-Section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:
Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.
(3) Every application under Sub-Section (1) shall be in such CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.9 of 19 form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.
(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under Sub-Section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing...".
10. After analyzing the relevant provisions of the D.V. Act, it is culled out that the complainant can get relief under the said Act only when she qualifies to be an aggrieved person. The expression "aggrieved person" means a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The expression "domestic relationship"
means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The relationship may be by : (i) consanguinity, (ii) marriage or, (iii) through a relationship in the nature of a marriage, (iv) adoption or, (v) are family members living together as a joint family. The expression "domestic relationship" is a comprehensive as well as expansive one. If aggrieved person is living or at any point of time lived together in "shared household" with the person against whom allegations of domestic violence have been made, the provisions of D.V. Act would apply. It is relevant to note the expression "marriage" also encompasses "relationship in the nature of marriage".
Findings:-
11. From the pleadings and the documents, it is the case of the complainant that she got married with the respondent on 02.06.2013 and CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.10 of 19 that she resided with respondent /husband and other respondents i.e. in laws of the complainant at the matrimonial home where she was subjected to domestic violence.
The respondent has admitted the marriage between him and the complainant. The respondent has also not disputed the domestic relationship between him and the complainant.
Domestic Violence:-
12. In order to prove that the complainant was subjected to domestic violence, she has examined herself as CW-1 and has relied upon evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.CW-1/1. The complainant has distinctly mentioned that she was subjected to physical beatings and mental torture by the respondent and in order to prove her version, she relied upon the documents i.e. copy of DD no.3A dt. 30.08.2023 as Mark-A, copy of complaint to SHO dated 26.08.2013 as Mark-B, copy of FIR no.451/13, PS Shalimar Bagh, u/s 323/506/509/34 IPC as Mark- C, copy of MLC of complainant of DJRMA Hospital dated 05.01.2023 as Mark-D. She also tendered her additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/1A and also relied upon the documents i.e. Copy of orders as Mark E(Colly.), certified copy of purchase deed as mark-F and Certified copy of purchase deed as Mark-G. The MLC placed on record by the complainant shows that bruise and abrasion is mentioned on the left fore- arm of the complainant.
13. The registration of DD no.3A dt. 30.08.2023 (Mark-A), copy of complaint to SHO dated 26.08.2013 (Mark-B) and FIR CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.11 of 19 no.451/13, PS Shalimar Bagh, u/s 323/506/509/34 IPC (Mark-C) have not been disputed by the respondent in his written statement. However, he has disputed the contents of the above said complaints. The allegations of domestic violence find strength from the said complaints. The respondent has failed to disprove the complaint. The respondent has also failed to lead any evidence to prove his defence. The testimony of the complainant has remained uncontested and unrebutted. Therefore, the the complainant has successfully proved on record that she was subjected to domestic violence.
Quantum of Maintenance :
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. In Criminal Appeal NO. 730 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9503 of 2018) has laid down that 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. The other factors which are required to be kept in mind while deciding the interim maintenance has been mentioned in the said judgment. The relevant extract is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"LAW ON THE POINT OF MAINTENANCE III Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance (I) The objective of granting interim / permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependant spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.CA No.40/2024
Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.12 of 19 The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
On 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. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.13 of 19 so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
(iii) Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning or from any other source.
(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.
(v) The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde 37 laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance :
"1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3.The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.
\8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act. 17."
(v) Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable.
(a) Age and employment of parties CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.14 of 19 In a marriage of long duration, where parties have endured the relationship for several years, it would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. On termination of the relationship, if the wife is educated and professionally qualified, but had to give up her employment opportunities to look after the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would be required to be given due importance. This is of particular relevance in contemporary society, given the highly competitive industry standards, the separated wife would be required to undergo fresh training to acquire marketable skills and re- train herself to secure a job in the paid workforce to rehabilitate herself. With advancement of age, it would be difficult for a dependant wife to get an easy entry into the work-force after a break of several years.
(b) Right to residence Section 17 of the D.V. Act grants an aggrieved woman the right to live in the "shared household". Section 2(s) defines "shared household" to include the household where the aggrieved woman lived at any stage of the domestic relationship; or the household owned and rented jointly or singly by both, or singly by either of the spouses; or a joint family house, of which the respondent is a member.
The right of a woman to reside in a "shared household"
defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja (supra) held that "shared household" referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the application was filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree of permanence. A mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute a"shared household". It is important to consider the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of the household, to determine whether the premises is a "shared household". Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the D.V. Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of the joint family, or that the household must belong to the joint family, in which he or the aggrieved CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.15 of 19 woman has any right, title or interest. The shared household may not necessarily be owned or tenanted by the husband singly or jointly.
Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.
(c) Where wife is earning some income The Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.
In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.
In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil Kachwaha the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v Kalyani Sanjay Kale while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.16 of 19 does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court.
This Court in Shamima Farooqui v Shahid Khan cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extra-curricular / coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.
(e) Serious disability or ill health Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child / children from the marriage / defendant relative who require constant care and recurrent expenditure, would also be a relevant consideration while quantifying maintenance..."
15. It is well settled that there exist no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent 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 maintenance amount awarded is required to be reasonable and realistic.
16. Admittedly, the respondent and the complainant are husband and wife, who are living separately and the respondent being husband is legally bound to maintain the complainant/wife. The respondent has CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.17 of 19 failed to file any document on record to suggest that the complainant is working or that she is having any other source of income. The Ld. Trial Court has duly considered the income affidavit(s) filed by the contesting parties and thereafter has assessed the monthly income of the respondent as Rs.20,000/-.
17. The determination of income of the respondent is based upon the income affidavit and documents relied by the parties. There is nothing on record to differ from the income assessed by the Ld. Trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. (Supra) has categorically held that 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 & children if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications.
18. Applying the formula laid down in the judgment of Annurita Vohra versus Sandeep Vohra 110(2004) 546 the Family Resource Cake should be divided in three pieces out of which two pieces is required to be kept with the husband. The Ld. Trial Court has granted total sum of Rs.10,000/- for the maintenance of the wife. It is apparent that the quantum of maintenance has been awarded on the higher side. The complainant deserves Rs.6,700/- per month maintenance from the respondent. All other terms & conditions as mentioned in the impugned order shall remain intact qua the maintenance.
Compensation awarded to the complainant :
19. The sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which has been awarded as CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.18 of 19 compensation amount has been passed after recording the reasons in the impugned order. The petition in the instant matter was filed on 03.01.2014 and the matter was finally decided on 05.01.2023. It can not be said that the delay in the matter was just due to the complainant. It is apparent that considerable time and money must have been spent by the complainant. The complainant has successfully proved on record that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. Therefore, the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Ld. Trial Court is reasonable and realistic which do not demand any interference.
20. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order and judgment is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs.6,700/- per month as maintenance be paid to the complainant by the respondent. All other terms & conditions as mentioned in the impugned order shall remain unchanged. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands partly allowed.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. TCR alongwith the copy of this Judgment be sent to the Court concerned.
22. At request, copy of this order be given dasti to both the Digitally signed by parties. JITENDRA JITENDRA SINGH SINGH Date: 2024.07.30 15:11:34 +0530 Announced in the open court (JITENDRA SINGH) today i.e. on 30.07.2024 ASJ(Electricity)/Distt. North-West Rohini Courts, Delhi, 30.07.2024 CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.19 of 19