Delhi District Court
Saurabh Arora vs Sapna Arora on 21 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-02(NE), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CA No. 05/2022
PS : Shahdara
Saurabh Arora
S/o Sh. Narendra Arora
R/o House No. 56A, 1st Floor,
Guru Angad Nagar Ext.,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92 ...Appellant.
Versus
Sapna Arora
W/o. Sh. Saurabh Arora
R/o. House No. C-22, Street No.3,
Amar Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi -110094 ...Respondent
Date of assignment : 20.01.2022
Date of Arguments : 09.05.2022
Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2022
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this appeal u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 23.10.2021.
CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 1/7
2. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has argued that the appellant has filed this appeal on 19.01.2022 against the impugned order dated 23.10.2021, but this appeal could not be filed within time, as Ld. Counsel for appellant could not obtain the certified copy of the impugned order because of his ailment. It is argued that delay in filing of this appeal was not intentional or deliberate but due to the reason cited above and delay may be condoned.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is bearing illegality and infirmity, as the respondent herein left the company of the appellant deliberately and intentionally, due to she was not entitled for any maintenance or accommodation, but still Ld. Trial Court has awarded maintenance to daughter and accommodation charges to the respondent. It is further argued that even the respondent has been earning much more than the appellant, but still Ld. Trial Court has failed to understand that she was not entitled for any accommodation charges or school fees of the daughter of the appellant, and passed impugned order thereby directing the appellant to pay monthly expenses of Rs.10,000/-pm qua educational charges of his daughter and Rs. 5,000/- pm for accommodation of respondent. It is further argued that respondent is a working woman and has been earning Rs.65,650/- per month, whereas appellant is just earning Rs.52,000/- per month and also has to maintain his old parents as well as payment of EMI of his loan amount and impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further argued that it is pertinent to mention here that respondent is not residing in any rented accommodation despite drawing an HRA of Rs.12,000/- from his employer, but has forged a rent agreement just to extort money from the appellant. It is further argued that Ld. Trial court has failed to understand that respondent is money minded lady and has sufficient means of income to maintain her daughter as well as herself and supposed to maintain her daughter including bearing of her educational charges but Ld. Trial Court failed to under this fact, due to impugned order is liable to be set aside.
CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 2/7 It is further argued that impugned order is bearing illegality as well as infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that this appeal filed by the appellant is just a delay tactic and just to avoid payment of maintenance of his daughter and rent expenses of his wife. It is further argued that appellant has been earning Rs. 52,000/- per month and his daughter and wife are his sole responsibility, due to he is legally liable to maintain them. It further submitted that respondent is already bearing almost all expenses of her daughter including payment of her school fees, whereas Ld. Trial Court has just directed appellant to pay much lesser amount of school fees i.e. Rs. 10,000/- pm only and Rs. 5,000/- pm for rented accommodation of respondent, which cannot be said that appellant has been directed to bear all the expenses of his daughter and wife. It is further argued that it has come on record that school fees of the daughter of the respondent is Rs.14,490/- pm, whereas payment of Rs.10,000/-pm only as directed by the Ld. Trial Court cannot be said unreasonable in any manner. It is further argued that rent of Rs.5,000/- per month for alternative accommodation is also not exorbitant in any manner and all pleas taken by the appellant are liable to be discarded and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments as under:-
1. Lopamurda Konwar Bhuyan & Anr Vs. Surajit Singh, Crl. Rev. P. 42/2016,
2. Farooq Ahmed Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier, Crl. REV. P. 855/2018.
6. I have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record. This appeal has been preferred on 19.01.2022 against the impugned order dated 23.10.2021 and appellant has pleaded for condonation of delay, due to plea of condonation of delay CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 3/7 has to be decided first. This impugned order was passed on 23.10.2021, whereas appeal has been preferred on 19.01.2022, which is apparently barred by limitation. However, limitation for filing of all types of litigations was suspended / stopped by the Hon'ble Apex Court w.e.f. 15/03/2020 to 14/03/2021 and thereafter also, by the case titled Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, IN RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. In fact, this appeal has been filed during this extended period of limitation and impugned order was also filed during this period due to no condonation of delay is required and appeal is not barred by limitation.
7. Now the merit of this case has to be seen. The main plea of the appellant is that the respondent is an earning lady and has been earning much more than the appellant, due to she is not entitled for educational charges of her daughter and also for the charges of her alternative accommodation. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further pleaded that respondent should also share the school fees of the daughter due to impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Admittedly, the children are the responsibilities of both parents whether they are residing together or separately, but situation becomes different for children when both parents start residing separately and starts opposing their legal duties to maintain their children also. In this case also, both the parents are residing separately and are blaming to each other for their separation despite the fact that both are financially well off. Even they are also contesting for educational charges of their daughter as well.
9. Though Ld. Trial Court has awarded only interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- pm towards the partial educational charges of the daughter of the appellant, yet the appellant has challenged this maintenance/ charges also and has pleaded for shared school fees of the daughter. Admittedly, children do not need only education for their bring up but also many other expenses including day-to-day expenses and medical CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 4/7 expenses etc. The observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made in case titled Lopamurda Konwar Bhuyan & Anr Vs. Surajit Singh, Crl Rev. P. 42/2016 is material as under:-
The view taken by the trial court that both the parents are responsible for meeting the day-to-day expenses, nourishment, medical and other expenses of the child, in my view is erroneous. Admittedly the custody of Petitioner No. 2 is with Petitioner no. 1. A child for her upbringing does not only require money. A lot of time and effort goes in upbringing of a child. It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child. A mother who has custody of a child not only spends money on the upbringing of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child. The trial court has erred in equalizing the effort of both the parents in upbringing of the child. One cannot put value to the time and effort put in by the mother in upbringing of the child. No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two.
10. Further, even the educational charges of the children also does not include only school fess but also many other expenses and the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 is relevant as under:
91.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 extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
11. A similar proposition has laid down in case titled Farooq Ahmed Shala Vs. Marie Chanel Gillier, Crl. REV. P. 855/2018 as under:-
21. Petitioner has a legal, social and moral responsibility to not only maintain his wife but also his children. Even if assuming that the respondent is earning, the same cannot be a reason for the petitioner to avoid the responsibility and duty of maintaining his minor daughters.
CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 5/7
22. A child for her upbringing does not only require money. A lot of time and effort goes in upbringing of a child. It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for the expenses of the child. A mother who has custody of a child not only spends money on the upbringing of the child but also spent substantial time and effort in bringing up the child. One cannot put value to the time and effort put in by the mother in upbringing of the child. No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of the child but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two.
In view of the abovesaid case law, it stands proved that the mother has to put a lot of efforts in bringing up of the children and not only merely payment of their school fees. Even education expenses are also not confined to just payment of school fees but also for many other expenses as well.
12. In this case, perusal of the impugned order dated 23.10.2021 would shows that Ld. Trial Court has categorically observed that the petitioner (respondent herein) has been earning more than Rs. 68,000/- per month as her net monthly income, whereas the appellant has been earning Rs. 52,000/- per month. Even the respondent was also aware about this fact that she was gainfully earning due to she demanded only educational expenses of her daughter and claimed educational expenses of Rs. 33,900/-, but Ld. Trial Court granted her only Rs.10,000/- per month, despite observing that the monthly school fees of the daughter was Rs.14,490/- per month. It is beyond explanation in what manner it may be said unreasonable. I have already observed that upbringing of a child needs not only money but also many other efforts and expenses which have already been ignored in this case, but still appellant is satisfied with this order, which does not need any modification.
13. Similarly, shared expenses of the educational charges of the daughter, as argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant, cannot be considered in view of the observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Farooq Ahmed Shala (supra).
CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 6/7
14. So far as rental of Rs.5,000/- per month for an alternative accommodation of the respondent is concerned, respondent has annexed a rent agreement, as per which, she has been paying Rs.12,000/- per month and appellant has not filed any counter document to dispute this rent agreement, due to an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for rental accommodation of respondent cannot be faulted. It is pertinent to mention here that this rented accommodation is being shared not only by the respondent but also by the daughter of the appellant as well, who is his responsibility. As such, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it stands proved that the impugned order is not bearing any illegality or infirmity and the same is liable to be dismissed. As such, this appeal devoid merit, hence dismissed.
15. TCR be sent back to Court concerned alongwith copy of this judgment.
16. Copy of this judgment also be sent to both parties through e-mail.
17. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by DEVENDRA DEVENDRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.05.21 17:34:14 +0530 Announced in open court (Devender Kumar) today on 21.05.2022 Additional Sessions Judge-02 (NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CA No. 05/22 Saurabh Arora Vs. Sapna Arora 7/7