Delhi District Court
Smt. Ritu Antil vs Sh. Rohit Shokeen on 12 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
ASJ-06 , NDD, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr. Appeal No. - 226/2019
In the matter of:
Smt. Ritu Antil
W/o Sh. Rohit Shokeen
R/o 001, Ground Floor,
Ganga Apartment, Block -9 (G-9),
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
........ Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Rohit Shokeen
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
2. Sh. Om Prakash (Father-in-law)
3. Smt. Roshni Devi
All Residents at:-
Mangolpur Kalan,
New Delhi - 110085.
....... Respondents
Date of filing of Appeal : 04.10.2019
Date of reserving Order : 14.07.2022
Date of pronouncement of order : 12.08.2022*
* On 14.07.2022 the parties did not make any oral submissions. They sought time for
filing of written submissions. 15 days time was granted to the parties for filing of
written submissions.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed against order dated 11.09.2019 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court-01), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Vide this impugned order Ld. Trial Court declined the grant of interim JUDGMENT Page..... 1/7 Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019 maintenance to the appellant. Further, interim maintenance @ Rs. 3500/- per month was granted for the daughter of the parties.
1.1 The appellant is the original complainant. The respondent is the original respondent. For the sake of clarity, parties shall be referred to by the original nomenclature as mentioned in the original complaint.
Brief Facts:
2. In the present appeal it is prayed that the order / direction may be passed to pay maintenance for appellant and enhancement of amount of maintenance as per the needs of the appellant and the daughter of the parties. The amount of maintenance claimed for the appellant and the enhanced amount claimed for the minor daughter of the parties is not specified. In such circumstances the prayer made in the original complaint shall be seen. In the original complaint, application under Section 23(1) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed. In prayer -(f) of this application the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month as interim maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.
2.1 The matrimonial relationship between the parties is admitted.
3. Arguments heard.
3.1 In the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant it is stated that vide order dated 06.03.2017 in petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act the court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- as interim maintenance for the minor daughter of the parties. Since the said petition was withdrawn by the present appellant the said order could not be enforced.
JUDGMENT Page..... 2/7Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019 3.2 Ld. Trial Court erred in ignoring the said order. At the time of passing of
the order dated 06.03.2017 the minor daughter of the parties was not a school going child. Still an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month was granted as interim maintenance. Now the minor daughter of the parties is enrolled in a school. The monthly income of the respondent is much higher than the monthly income of the appellant (complainant). She is residing in a rented accommodation paying monthly rent. Whereas the respondent is residing in his own house where he was served with the summons of the Ld. Trial Court, also in the matter before the Ld. Family Court as well as EOW complaint case (SIC). It shows that the respondent has wrongly raised claim regarding payment of rent. The respondent never challenged order dated 06.03.2017 of Ld. Family Court. It shows that award of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month to the minor daughter of the parties was accepted by the respondent.
3.3 The appellant has also relied upon the judgment dated 05.04.2021 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 820/2018 & Criminal M. A. No. 32656/2018 titled as "Jaiveer Singh Vs. Sunita Chaudhary" of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3.4 In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that the appellant is gainfully employed. Her salary in the bank statement is reflected as 16,211/- in April' 2019. Ld. Trial Court did not grant any interim maintenance to the appellant since she is earning. The appellant has not brought on record any subsequent changes for enhancement in the maintenance already granted. The divorce petition filed by the appellant is fixed for 05.08.2022 for disposal of the maintenance application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Filing of the present appeal is a gross abuse of process of law.
JUDGMENT Page..... 3/7Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:-
4. I have perused the impugned order. In view of the contents of the impugned order it can be safely deduced that the monthly income of the parties is not disputed. In para no. 10 of the impugned order it is observed that the complainant submitted that the respondent was working in a hospital and his income was Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is also observed that as per the latest bank statement of the complainant her monthly salary for the month of April' 2019 was reflected as Rs. 16,211/-.
4.1 It can be seen that in view of the observations the total family income of the appellant and the respondent (when they resided together) would be slightly more than Rs. 40,000/- per month. The complainant has not shown any specific reason why despite being an earning person she should be granted maintenance. The income of the respondent vis-a-vis the income of the complainant is not so high, to show that the complainant would have been enjoying a much higher standard of living, while she was residing with the respondent, as compared to her present standard of living.
4.2 Where the complainant is earning, for claiming maintenance from the respondent it is to be fairly shown that the complainant was enjoying much higher standard of living while residing with the respondent; as compared to her present standard of living. She cannot afford that previous standard of living with her own income.
4.3 With regard to the monthly maintenance granted to the minor daughter of the parties, it was submitted that at the time of filing of the original complaint the daughter of the parties was not a school going child. She was born in the year 2015. The original complaint was filed in the year 2016. It is a matter of JUDGMENT Page..... 4/7 Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019 record that the impugned order was passed on 11.09.2019. As per norms, a child is admitted to school at the age of three years. It leads to the conclusion that the minor daughter of the parties started going to school before the disposal of the application under Section 23(1) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The complainant has not specifically pointed out anything to show that this changed fact / circumstance was brought to the notice of the Ld. Trial Court.
4.4 On 30.04.2022 during the course of the hearing of this appeal it was admitted by the appellant / complainant that no documents regarding the school / education expenses of the minor daughter of the parties have been filed. Two weeks time was granted to file the said documents. There is nothing on record to show that any such documents have been filed by the complainant / appellant. Even in the written submissions filed on behalf of the complainant there is no mention of the education expenses of the minor daughter of the parties. No documents showing the schooling / educational expenses of the minor daughter of the parties are annexed with the written submissions filed by the complainant.
4.5 The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation. As such it should be interpreted liberally in favour of the aggrieved person. However, the court cannot presume anything. It is the duty of the parties to bring the facts before the court. We are working under an adversarial system of litigation. The burden of proof is upon the party which wants the court to believe the fact alleged by the said party. The court can help only those who assist the court properly. There is no explanation for the inaction of the complainant in filing the said documents regarding the educational expenses / school expenses of the minor daughter. It is pertinent to observe JUDGMENT Page..... 5/7 Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019 that though the complainant has relied upon the order dated 06.03.2017 of the Ld. Family Court, there is nothing on record to show that even an uncertified copy of the same is filed. I have seen the index filed along with the appeal. There is no mention of the said order dated 06.03.2017 in the index. I have seen the list of documents at page no. 32 of the paper book, even in this list of documents there is no mention of the said order of the Ld. Family Court.
4.6 With great respect it is pertinent to observe that the order of Ld. Family Court is not binding on this court. Still in view of respect and sanctity attached to every court order, the said order dated 06.03.2017 might have been of some help to this court for deciding the quantum of interim maintenance which would be granted to the minor daughter of the parties. However, without going into contents and the reasoning of the said order, no assistance / help can be taken from the said order.
4.7 Vigilantibus non-dormientibus jura subjveniunt. The law will help those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over their rights. It is painful to see that despite specific directions and opportunity being given to the complainant, she has not bothered to file any documents regarding the school / education expenses of the child.
5. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order.
6. In view of the above there is no material before the court to direct any enhancement of the interim maintenance already granted to the minor child / daughter of the parties. There is also no material before the court to order for the grant of any interim maintenance to the appellant.
JUDGMENT Page..... 6/7Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019 7. The appeal is dismissed. 8. Copy of this order be sent back along with TCR.
9. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 12.08.2022 ASJ-06/NDD/PHC/NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT Page..... 7/7
Ritu Antil Vs. Rohit Shokeen Cr. Appeal No. 226/2019