Delhi District Court
Present vs . on 3 February, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI,
ADJ06 (CENTAL) / DELHI.
HMA : 52/10
HARPREET SINGH
VS.
USHA MANIKLATA
Present: Applicant / respondent in person with Ms. Geeta Luthra and
Sh. Balendu Shekhar Advocates.
Nonapplicant / petitioner in person with Sh. Sunil Mittal
and Ms. Saloni Advocates.
ORDER
1. By this order, I dispose of an application filed by the respondent u/s 24 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in brief the act).
2. Parties of this case are a couple having married on 26.12.1985 in Delhi according to Sikh rites. They were blessed with two sons namely Sahil Singh and Ishan Singh having born on 01.05.1987 and 12.12.1992 respectively. The couple could not go long together in the walk of their life and parted their ways alleging cruelty against each other. The respondent consumed 6070 tablets of paracetamol allegedly incited and goaded by the petitioner, which damaged the liver of same substantially. The petitioner came forward to save her and gave a part of his liver for transplantation. Neither tumblerfull of tablets consumed by the wife (respondent) could induce emotions of this couple nor a piece of liver offered by the husband, proved enough to patch up the cracks having crept in their love bond. The husband (Harpreet Singh) preferred a petition u/s 13 (i) (ia) and (ib) of the act seeking dissolution of their marriage, contending that respondent walked out of matrimonial home on 10.09.2002 along with their HMA : 52/10 1/10 2 children, without just cause or reason and also that same (respondent) had treated him with cruelty. The petition is pending for trial.
3. Through application in hands, the respondent has prayed for an order of this court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/ per month to the applicant as maintenance pendentelite and further a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ as litigation and other expenses for contesting the petition.
4. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for applicant / respondent that the latter has no source of income rather survives on meager savings being provided by her father . She did not get her streedhan back from the petitioner. Not only herself, she is supporting and maintaining their two sons with the aid and help of her parents. The elder son (Sahil Singh) is about 19 yrs old and is studying in London University, U.K., while the younger son (Ishan Singh) is 13 yrs of age and pursuing his studies in British School, Chanakya Puri. The applicant / respondent has to spend about Rs. 10,00,000/ for the education of elder son and Rs. 1,00,000/ per annum for the schooling of her younger son. She is suffering with liver problem for which she is getting treatment from Kings college Hospital, London. Petitioner does not contribute anything either for the education of their children or treatment of applicant.
5. The petitioner is leading luxurious life. Same is owner of a plot measuring 1800 sq yds situated at Sector 7, Manesar, Haryana; one three bed room house in Lailpur Corporative Society; a farm land at Sohna, Haryana. He is earning from the business of money lending HMA : 52/10 2/10 3 and has huge investments in Doon Investments based in Dehradun, (Uttaranchal), out of which he is getting interest tothe tune of Rs. 20,00,000/. Same owns a Mercedes Car worth Rs. 38,00,000/, wears Rolax Watch worth Rs. 6,00,000/. Apart from all this, the petitioner and his family members are having share of 17.4% in the chain of Stores known as "Perfection House". He is having a factory at Sarai Jullena, Okhla, New Delhi. He has a foreign bank account in London having deposited several lacs of rupees. He has shares worth Rs. 30,00,000/ having purchased through one Sh. Dutt and Sh. Kashyap, Stock Brokers. In this way, the petitioner is earning about Rs. 5,00,000/ per month.
6. All these facts are denied by the nonapplicant / petitioner in his reply. As per the latter, it is the respondent herself, who is responsible for break up of their relationship. Her mind changed in mid 1990's, when her father came into money, who is having his business of garments in United Kingdom. Ld. Counsel ridiculed plea of applicant stating that she survives on "meager savings" having received from her father. As per ld. Counsel, if said fact was true, the applicant could not have afforded study of her children in such expensive schools. The applicant does not require any financial help from the petitioner, otherwise why she did not bother to file such application, for about one year of this case. The applicant has independent source of income. She has her own PAN Card and is running a business in the name of "Seranade". She is also having a share in the flourishing business in United Kingdom, in the name and style of "Paushak", from which she has a regular income running into thousands of Pound Sterling. She is maintaining an Hyundai Accent and another BMW car.
HMA : 52/10 3/10 4She has shares, mutual funds, etc. in her name. One dividend of "Margan Stanley Growth Fund" was received at the address of petitioner. She owns shares / stocks, etc. in India and in United Kingdom. She owns a flat at Dwarka, New Delhi, and a house in United Kingdom. She has been traveling abroad particularly United Kingdom and Europe along with her children.
7. Citing all this, it is contended by ld. Counsel for nonapplicant that the applicant does not deserve any maintenance. Ld. Counsel relied upon a case tilted as "Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. 171 (2010) DLT 644". Both of parties i.e. husband as well as wife were employed. Both were holding MBA degrees. In such a circumstance, it was held by our own High Court that fixing of maintainance by the court without there being proof of husband being employed in India, was contrary to law.
8. The applicant denied flatly being running any business in the name of "Seranade" or having any share in the business being run by her father in the name and style of "Paushak". Same also denies to be maintaining any car like Hyundai Accent or BMW or owning any plot at Dwarka, Delhi or a house in United Kingdom. There is no evidence to substantiate said plea of nonapplicant. The applicant does not deny travelling United Kingdom. As per her, she is a British national and goes there to visit her parents as well as to get treatment.
9. Copy of some statement of account in the name of applicant is put on files. Pointing out certain entries, Ld. Counsel for nonapplicant tried to establish that the applicant runs a business and earns money and HMA : 52/10 4/10 5 claimed that otherwise there was no reason for such large amounts having been credited in her account.
10.It is explained by ld. Counsel for applicant that all these amounts were received by her client, on being deposited by her father or other family member.
11.So far as the income of nonapplicant / petitioner is concerned, it is not denied that same is director of M/s H.S. Exim Pvt. Ltd., having a plot bearing no. 140, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon, or that a factory at Okhla Industrial Area. It is submitted that nonapplicant has no income from said properties. The factory at Manesar, Haryana is owned by M/s. H.S. Exim Pvt. Ltd., where the petitioner holds 51% shares only. The company has taken a loan of about Rs. 1,00,00,000/ from the Haryana Financial Corporation and another loan of Rs. 50,00,000/ from Tata Capital Ltd., for construction of factory. Though the factory was rented out in August, 2007 but income derived from the rent is not enough to pay the installments of loan. Similarly, rental income derived from the factory at Okhla, Industrial Area, is very small. The petitioner filed counter affidavit verifying said facts. As per him, both of said properties earned a meager amount i.e. Rs. 4,11,965/ in year 200809.
12.The petitioner has also put on file, photocopy of income tax return filed by the applicant for assessment year 200809. Some of entries in this return are obliterated and not disclosed.
13.It is pointed out by ld. Counsel for petitioner that Sahil Singh etc. filed HMA : 52/10 5/10 6 a suit before The High court of Delhi, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against present petitioner etc., where the plaintiffs had claimed that the petitioner is owner of properties / business mentioned as under :
1. House No. B536, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
2. 17.4% interest as partner in firm of M/s. Perfection Silks and Sarees House, and M/s. Perfection House Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
3. 16.01% share in building no. 2870 to 2873, situated at Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, which is occupied by M/s. Perfection Silks and Sarees House and other tenants.
4. M/s. High tide, M/s. Flari, M/s. Seranade, M/s. Dazzle, M/s.
Glitters.
5. Plot in Sohna, Haryana - purchased by Harpreet Singh in June/July 2002 in partnership with Mukesh Tyagi, paid amount from Punjab National Bank's account.
6. Flat in Dwarka, New Delhi - The Great Lyallpur Group Housing Society Ltd.
7. Noida Plot.
8. Okhla Factory - S80, Okhla Industrial Areas, PhaseII, New Delhi.
9. Bank Account of deceased Joginder Singh + his FDR.
10. Bank account of Harpreet Singh + his FDR
11. Shares - In India : Rs. 35 lacs. In U.K. : Rs. 15,500 Pounds.
12. Mercedes Car.
14.As per ld. Counsel, the High Court dismissed the application filed by HMA : 52/10 6/10 7 the plaintiffs u/o. 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC observing that the present petitioner was not owner of those properties.
15.At the same time, it is argued by ld. Counsel for applicant that the nonapplicant was sharing the income from those properties and business, may same are properties / business of joint family. As per her, the court is bound to consider even the income from the joint family business. Moreover, as per ld. Counsel, petitioner has deliberately not disclosed his income and hence anadverse inference should be drawn against him. Ld. Counsel referred a case titled as "Sh. Sudhir Diwan Vs. Smt. Tripta Diwan & Anr., 147 (2008) Delhi Law Times 756", where it was mandated by our High Court speaking through Hon'ble Justice Pradeep Nandrajog that where a party does not truthfully disclose his income, the element of conjuncture and guess work has to be inevitably enter in the decision making process.
16.I find weight in said submission of ld. Counsel for applicant. While considering an application like application in hands, the court does not ponder to decide the title of any properties rather tries to assess the income of parties particularly the party liable to pay for the other spouse. Every income, may it be independent or share in joint family business or from whatever source it is derived, can be taken into account, while determining the amount of maintenance. As mentioned above, it is not denied that the petitioner is also member of family, deriving income from the business of M/s. Perfection Silk and Sarees House. The petitioner is also sharing income of factory at Manesar, Haryana, being director of a private limited company namely M/s. H.S. Exim.
HMA : 52/10 7/10 817.Section 24 of the act provides for maintenance pendentelite and expenses of proceedings to be given to the wife / husband, as the case may be, who has no independent income sufficient for her / his support. The court is not supposed to enter into evidence to prove the ownership of properties of spouse liable to pay maintenance . The fact that the legislature has provided a period of 60 days for disposal of such application, is evident that aforestated is a summary procedure . The court has to assess the income of the parties, on the basis of information provided by them or taking prima facie view of the evidence, which ever is put on file by the parties. May I refer here some cases on this point :
1. "Harminder Kaur Vs Harvinder Singh Baweja 123 (2005) Delhi Law Times 311" "Needless to say that while disposing of an application under section 24 of The HMA the court has only to take a prima facie view regarding the income and expenditure of the parties and has to fix the maintenance depending upon the status, family background qualifications and social circle, etc."
2."Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra, AIR 1994 Delhi 234" The income from common business of the family can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of social status as well as for fixing the quantum of interim maintenance.
3."Smt. Renu Jain Vs. Mahavir Prasad Jain, AIR 1987 Delhi 43" While determining the amount of maintenance, the properties of the husband and his joint family and their business, social status has to be taken into consideration.
4. "V. Usha Rani Vs. K.L.N. Rao, AIR 2001 Pujab & Haryana 371" "To my mind, the word "support" should not be so narrowly HMA : 52/10 8/10 9 interpreted, the word "support" does not mean bare existence. It means that the spouse should be in so much comfort as the other spouse is in Section 24 cannot, of course, be intended to bring about arithmetical eqaulity between the two.
18.The applicant has sought maintenance for herself as well as for her two sons, who are admittedly being looked after by her. The non applicant is not contributing for the expenses of said two children. Though the younger son Ishan was minor at the time of filing this application, same has also become major now. As per ld. Counsel for nonapplicant, the latter is not legally bound to give any maintenance for major sons.
19.Ld. counsel for applicant did not dispute said contention but as per her, the court should consider the moral responsibility of respondent to pay for the education of her children, who are dependent upon her, may be major. I find force in this plea.
20.Like a tree, which uses to shed its leaves, with the fall of autumn, humanparents are not expected to throw their ward off the house, the day, same attains majority. We keep on providing our children, with food, other necessities or even college fee (if in studies) and assist them in becoming self dependent. May it not our legal duty, we cannot ignore our social responsibilities. Supporting his / her dependent child is an integral part of parents own support in the life. In this way, responsibility of applicant spouse (wife) to bring up and educate a child born to her from the loins of respondent (husband), cannot be negated simply because that child has entered HMA : 52/10 9/10 10 18th year of his age. At the same time, if a spouse after being separated from other life partner, enrolls his / her ward in more expensive school, same can not claim reimbursement of all of expenses of child's schooling, which event they had not done, while remaining together.
21.The claim of applicant cannot be rejected simply by saying that she is getting money from her father, who is running a flourishing business in United Kingdom. It is not said father, rather the petitioner, who is duty bound to maintain the applicant being his legally wedded wife. The application is thus allowed and keeping in mind, the status of parties, life style of which the applicant has become accustomed income of parties particularly the income of nonapplicant / petitioner, the latter is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (One Lac) per month to the applicant as an interim maintenance from the date of filing this application till decision of this case. No detail of litigation expenses has been given by the applicant. No denial that same has engaged atleast one senior advocate to defend her case, same is allowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ as litigation expenses. to be paid by the nonapplicant.
22.Said amount of litigation expenses as well as dues of interim maintenance till today, be paid within one month from today. All this amount as well as amount of interim maintenance be deposited in the bank account of applicant. Interim maintenance be paid till 10th of each English Calender month. Applicant is asked to disclose her bank account to the nonapplicant / petitioner, in which amount be deposited.
Announced in open court (Rajender Kumar Shastri) on 03.02.2011 ADJ06(Central) / Delhi HMA : 52/10 10/10 11 HARPREET SINGH VS. USHA MANIKLATA 03.02.2011 Present: Applicant / respondent in person with Ms. Geeta Luthra and Sh. Balendu Shekhar Advocates.
Nonapplicant / petitioner in person with Sh. Sunil Mittal and Ms. Saloni Advocates.
An application u/s 24 of The HMA is disposed of vide separate order today.
To come for admission / denial and framing of issues on 29.04.2011.
(Rajender Kumar Shastri) ADJ06(Central) / Delhi HMA : 52/10 11/10