Delhi District Court
Sh. Navin Bhasin vs Aarti Bhasin on 18 September, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHRY, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
Crl. Rev. No. : 06/15
Unique Case ID : 02401R0121182015
Sh. Navin Bhasin
R/o House no.564, Sector 14,
Gurgaon122001. ........... Revisionist
Vs.
Aarti Bhasin,
D/o Arun Walia,
R/o V3, First floor,
Eldeco Green Meadows,
Sector Pie1
Greater Noida, UP. .......... Respondent
Date of Institution 4.3.2015
Judgment reserved on 28.08.2015
Judgment delivered on 18.09.2015
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present revision petition, petitioner has CR No. 6/15 Navin Bhasin Vs. Aarti Bhasin 1 2 assailed the order of the Ld. Trial Court dt. 04/02/2015, whereby the interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/ per month was awarded to the respondent and the child born out of the wedlock.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant got married to the revisionist according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is further alleged that immediately after marriage, the revisionist and his family started taunting the respondent for not bringing sufficient dowry. It is also averred that revisionist and his family made demands for gold jewellery and the refusal of the respondent to fullfil the demands made them furious and the respondent was deprived of the basic daily needs and was ill treated and tortured.
3. It is also alleged that the revisionist used to beat the respondent when she objected to illicit relationship of revisionist. It is also alleged that not only the sisters inlaw of complainant/respondent but their husbands also used to interfere in the family matters.
CR No. 6/15 Navin Bhasin Vs. Aarti Bhasin 2 3
4. It is also alleged that the respondent had to depend upon her father for her daily needs even during the period of pregnancy. It is also averred that even on the birth of the child, the revisionist and his family members demanded money and expensive gifts. It is also alleged that the respondent was constrained to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty meted out to her.
5. The revisionist/respondent denied the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that it was a counter blast to the criminal proceedings filed by the sister of revisionist against the respondent under Section 354 IPC r/w Section 120 IPC in which respondent is facing prosecution.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record. To determine the quantum of maintenance, the Ld. trial court relied upon the affidavit of the revisionist. Ld. Trial Court after considering the affidavit filed by the revisionist rightly held that though the revisionist had shown two persons being dependent on him but he had shown his income being Nil, which could not be reconciled. Ld. Trial Court also rightly held that it was improbable CR No. 6/15 Navin Bhasin Vs. Aarti Bhasin 3 4 for a person having no income to maintain a car and pay car loan and lookafter two dependents. It is an admitted fact that revisionist is paying car loan, though he had concealed the monthly installment of loan and the make of the car. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court rightly held that revisionist had concealed his income. I am of the view that revisionist has concealed his income to avoid paying the maintenance to respondent and their minor child. The revisionist had also stated that he possessed the credit cards and debit cards of Karnataka Bank but did not file bank statements despite being directed to do so, which also amounted to concealment of material facts. It is also pertinent to note that respondent has stated in his affidavit that there is a family house but it is in his mother's name.
7. The only question to be decided in the present revision petition is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by Ld. Trial Court is just and does not call for interference. The quantum of maintenance has to be decided on the basis of material on record. The expression "maintenance" includes expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical and other expenses relating to normal pursuit of life. Thus, the needs and requirements of wife and child for a CR No. 6/15 Navin Bhasin Vs. Aarti Bhasin 4 5 moderate living, the earning of the husband, his capacity to earn are relevant factors to be considered while determining the quantum of maintenance.
8. The Ld. Trial Court considered affidavit filed by revisionist to determine the quantum of maintenance. It is not the case of the revisionist that he is incapacitated by any disability from earning a livelihood. The revisionist had concealed his income by not placing on record the bank statements and income tax returns inspite of directions of Ld. Trial Court to do so. In the said facts and circumstances and considering the rising prices, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.30,000/ awarded as interim maintenance by Ld. Trial Court for the respondent and the child is not on the higher side. Thus, I am of the view that impugned order, does not suffer from any illegality. Moreover, the parties have yet to lead evidence to prove their allegations and counter allegations. The amount being received by the respondent in any other proceedings is liable to be adjusted. The revision is accordingly dismissed.
CR No. 6/15 Navin Bhasin Vs. Aarti Bhasin 5 6
9. A copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. TCR be sent back. The appeal file be consigned to the recordroom. Announced in the open court on this 18th day of September, 2015 (Poonam Chaudhry) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC Delhi.
CR No. 6/15 Navin Bhasin Vs. Aarti Bhasin 6