Delhi District Court
Ca No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & ... vs Kiran" on 6 February, 2018
CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN, ASJ(SFTC)
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA ,NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 405 & 412/17
In the matter of:
CA No. 405 & 412/2017
CC No. 5002408/16
Under Section 23 of DV Act
Kiran
D/o Shri K.L. Pal
R/o C-4, Madhu Vihar
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi -110059 .... Appellant/complainant
Versus
Sunil Pal
H. No. M-59
Gali No. 1, Near Tent Wala School,
Vijay Enclave,
New Delhi. .... Respondent
And
Sunil Pal
H. No. M-59
Gali No. 1, Near Tent Wala School,
Vijay Enclave,
New Delhi. .... Appellant/Respondent
Versus
Kiran
D/o Shri K.L. Pal
R/o C-4, Madhu Vihar
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi -110059 .... Complainant
Criminal Appeal Page 1 of 8
CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
ORDER
1. Cross appeals are directed against order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Ld. Mahila Court-02, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in complaint case No. 5002408/16 titled as "Kiran Vs. Sunil Pal and Ors." wherein Ld. Trial Court granted Rs. 12,000/- per month as monthly maintenance to complainant from date of filing of her complaint.
2. By way of her appeal, complainant is seeking enhanced maintenance amount whereas respondent has prayed for dismissal of application of complainant seeking maintenance.
3. Brief facts as noted by Ld Trial Court is that complainant filed complaint under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents on the allegations that she married respondent on 05.06.2015 and since her marriage she was harassed and treated with cruelty by the respondents. In her petition, complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- per month as maintenance for herself.
Criminal Appeal Page 2 of 8 CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
4. On the other hand, respondents in their reply refuted the allegations made by the complainant and stated that complainant has left the company of respondent of her own. She was never treated with cruelty by respondents rather it is the complainant who inflicted mental agony to respondents.
5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing rival contentions held that in view of respondent claims his monthly income as 6000 Dirham (Rs 1 lac approx.) and complainant is an educated lady, awarded Rs. 12,000/- per month as monthly maintenance to complainant.
6. Impugned order is challenged by complainant on ground that besides having the monthly salary of Rs. One Lakh, respondent has also additional income from tuition and coaching etc. It is stated that he has a monthly income of more than Rs. 3 lakhs whereas complainant is not earning and besides it she has a loan liability of a car which is in use of respondent and his family members. It is stated that in view of the facts of the case an amount of Rs. 45,000/- per month be awarded in her favor as maintenance.
Criminal Appeal Page 3 of 8 CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
7. Per Contra, respondent has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court ignored the fact that the complainant was working as PGT teacher since 12.07.2009. It is stated that complainant has been working since 25.07.2012 and even after marrying respondent she continued her employment. It is stated that in view of the fact that complainant is an well educated person having sufficient monthly income, she is not entitled to any maintenance. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon case titled as Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100, Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT (DB) and Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja & Anr., Cri. Rev. P. 344/2011.
8. It is argued on behalf of respondent that it stands established on record that complainant is post graduate and B.Ed and has worked as PGT teacher, therefore, she is having sufficient experience. It is argued that complainant in view of her educational experience cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put burden on respondent for demanding maintenance. It is stated that complainant is capable of earning more than respondent and for this reason she does not require any maintenance from him. Criminal Appeal Page 4 of 8 CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
9. I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the record.
10. Object of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife when they are unable to maintain themselves.
11. Respondent relied upon Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100, wherein while deciding question that whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure? it was held that: In fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. Criminal Appeal Page 5 of 8 CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
12. Respondent relied upon Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta, (2016) 234 DLT (DB) wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that appellant/wife who is a qualified Chartered Accountant and in profession since the year 2003 need not be granted interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
13. Ld Counsel for appellant also relied upon Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja & Anr., 2013(1) JCC 306 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if the lady was well educated and capable to maintain herself and she had chosen voluntarily not to gainfully employed herself, then she shall not be entitled to any maintenance.
14. I am afraid that none of judgments relied upon by respondent support his contention that complainant is not entitled for maintenance as there is nothing on record to establish that complainant herself willingly chosen not to gainfully employed herself. It is also not on record that complainant cunningly with ulterior motives to harass respondent after working for considerable period had maliciously withdrawn herself from the said work.
Criminal Appeal Page 6 of 8 CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
15. True that complainant is an educated lady and has worked as PGT teacher but there is no material on record to suggest that she is in service or has any earnings. Complainant is an educated lady is no ground to deny maintenance to her specially when there is no evidence on record to suggest that she is gainfully employed. One can't loose sight of the fact that even though married, complainant is still dependent upon her parents to provide her shelter.
16. It is the settled preposition of law that husband is not only required to maintain his wife but also to maintain her with such dignity and with such status which either she is already enjoying or is capable enough or entitled to enjoy in the life, it is only then, that it could be regarded as maintenance in true sense.
17. In order to adjudge as just and fair maintenance , all that court is required to do is to go into the income affidavits of the respective parties. In his income affidavit, respondent stated that his monthly income is 6000 Dirham (Rs 1 lac approximately), whereas complainant is not gainfully employed. Criminal Appeal Page 7 of 8 CA No. 405 & 412/17 "Kiran Vs Sunil Pal & Sunil Pal vs Kiran"
18. In my opinion complainant is not only entitled to receive an interim maintenance from respondent but also have a right to live in a dignified way and manner with the status which is being enjoyed by respondent himself before the society. Accordingly, impugned order is modified. Respondent is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/ per month to respondent towards her interim maintenance, from date of her petition till its final disposal.
19. Consequently, appeal preferred by complainant stands allowed in aforesaid terms and appeal filed by respondent stands dismissed.
Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 6th day of February, 2018.
(GAUTAM MANAN) ASJ (SFTC) /SOUTH WEST DWARKA COURTS:DELHI Criminal Appeal Page 8 of 8