Delhi District Court
Cc No. 09/1/13 Ps: Civil Lines Smt. Seema ... vs . Sh. Nishith Seth 1/17 on 6 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM : MAHILA COURT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CC No.09/01/13
PS: CIVIL LINES
06.06.2015
SMT. SEEMA SETH ........COMPLAINANT
VS.
SH. NISHITH SETH
...........RESPONDENT
Present: Ld. Proxy Counsel Ms. Parul Malik for the complainant.
Respondent with Ld. Counsel Sh. Hanu Bhaskar.
Matter is fixed for orders on the application of the respondent seeking
permission for allowing his entry in the shared household.
ORDER
1. By way of present application, it is submitted that he has been kicked out of the shared household by the complainant since June, 2012 and residing with the daughters in the shared household. The respondent on the other hand is forced to reside in the same society but in a different flat owned by his parents at their mercy. It is further is submitted that the respondent and his parents continued to meet the daughters after June 2012 till September 2012 but thereafter the complainant has not allowed to meet the respondent. After the filing of FIR against the respondents and his parents on 17.05.2013, the respondent met the daughters only once before the Ld. Judge Incharge, Mediation Cell, THC and even at that time the daughters were initially afraid of meeting as they were tutored , but after some time during their talks with the respondent, they were receptive. It is further submitted that the complainant has successfully managed to separate CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 1/17 the daughters from the respondent only in less than two years and thus love and affection between them cannot be wished away in air.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant ensures that meeting does not happen with the daughters in the society whenever the respondent tries to meet them. On festivals also she does not allow the children to meet their father and grand parents. Whenever the respondent goes to the flat, either the flat is not opened or there is threat of the police. It is further submitted that the complainant has changed the locks of the flat from outside as well as inside and therefore there can not be any occasion for the respondent to gain entry in his own flat. The respondent has been trying hard to settle the matter but neither the complainant wants to settle the matter nor live with the respondent, who has waited for almost two years so that good sense may prevail upon her but during this time the respondent has been trying hard to meet his daughters. It is further submitted that the flat is owned by the respondent and he himself is not allowed entry in the shared household and it is a matter of fact that the court has not restrained the respondent from entering the shared household. The respondent can not enter the flat and meet his daughters as the locks of the complete flat has been changed and the keys are with the complainant. The goods , documents , clothes etc. of the respondent are lying in the flat.
3. It is further submitted that the concept of DV Act is to allow the wife to reside in the shared household and it can not be that the husband is denied entry in the house while the wife continues to enjoy the benefits of the DV Act. It is lastly submitted that the respondent has a prima facie good case and balance of convenience also lies in favour of the respondent and in case the application is not allowed , the respondent shall suffer irreparable loss which can not be compensated in terms of monitory loss. The respondent has prayed that the complainant be directed to provide one set of keys of the entire flat to the respondent so that he can have access to his flats and meet his family including his daughters.
4. The complainant has filed reply to the application. By way of the reply , she has contended that the respondent is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The complainant has claimed that while the respondent was at Mumbai in June 2012, his father visited the shared household and took away all the personal belongings CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 2/17 of the respondent. The complainant objected to the taking away the personal belongings of the respondent and requested to make her speak to the respondent on phone but he did not pay any heed. The father of the respondent spoke to him on phone and inquired as to what all he wanted to pack in the suit case. Whereas in the written statement he has claimed to have been kicked out and forced to stay with his parents in their flats after his return from Mumbai. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent upon return from Mumbai went straightaway to his parent's home and has been staying out of his own will and volition and did not reside at the shared household even the absence of the complainant.
5. It is further submitted that the complainant was compelled to file the petition under DV Act when she and the children were not allowed entry into the shared household but with the intervention of the court now they have been residing there. It is further submitted that the report of the Protection Officer also confirms that on the day of her visit, the articles of the respondent were found in the house and even cup boards were found empty. It is further submitted that the respondent had broken the floor tiles and rendered the uninhabitable which subsequently were got repaired by the complainant. It is further submitted that the respondent is an aggressor and has no love for the children . The complainant has been a victim of domestic violence and the children are witness to the violence and the illtreatment given by the respondent. Both the children are grown up and have been interviewed by the court and the children have declined to talk or meet the respondents and his parents. The similar response of children was noted by the concerned Family court, where also the respondent had filed the application seeking permission to meet the children.
6. The court has heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the entire record with their assistance.
7. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has been residing along with her two daughters in the shared household i.e. Flat No.B608 of the same cooperative housing society , whereas the respondent is residing in some other flat i.e. E601 along with his parents. The allegation of the respondent that he has been kicked out has been countered by the complainant that he went to his parents house straightaway after returning from Mumbai and his father already collected all his belongings from the shared household before his return to CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 3/17 Delhi. In this regard, the court is of the view that these claims and counter claims can be proved only by leading evidence. It is noticeable that the Protection Officer in her report, which she had prepared after visiting the premises personally, has clearly mentioned that no articles of the respondent were found at the time of her visit and the cup board were also found empty. The report of the Protection Officer prima facie bolsters the claims of the complainant that the belongings of the respondent were already taken.
8. It is noticeable that the respondent has not pleaded specifically in the written statement that his articles are still lying in the shared household. The respondent has also not filed any list of articles in order to prove his claims in this respect. Had this been the case then the respondent would have certainly filed the application seeking return of his goods, documents, clothes etc. on urgent basis but he chose to file the application after more than one year of his appearance before the court.
9. Though the respondent has not been denied entry in the shared household but after the relations between the parties have gone to the extreme opposite end , it would not be appropriate to allow the respondent to enter the shared household. The inclination of the respondent to resolve the dispute with his family, if at all genuine, may deserve appreciation but the fact remains that the complainant as well as children have not yet approved his efforts. The children are now grown up and are capable of understanding the situation. They have more than once declined to meet either the respondent or his parents. In the given circumstances, primacy should be given to the children's wishes. It is for both the complainant and the respondent to take stock of the prevailing situation of their lives for the welfare of the family.
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is not inclined to pass an order in favour of the respondent at this stage. With these observations, the application of the respondent is disposed off.
11. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court THC/Delhi/06.06.2015 CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 4/17 IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM : MAHILA COURT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI CC No.09/01/13 PS: CIVIL LINES SMT. SEEMA SETH ........COMPLAINANT VS SH. NISHITH SETH ...........RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application of the complainant seeking Interim Monetary Relief under section 20 read with section 23 of DV Act filed along with the complaint.
2. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire case file with their assistance.
3. The present proceedings are under Domestic Violence Act, therefore, the Court is required to consider two important points :
(i) Whether domestic relationship existed between the parties : admittedly, respondent is the husband of the complainant and father of two minor daughters , who are in care and custody of their mother and that all of them lastly resided together at the shared household before getting separated. In view of admissions of the parties, domestic relationship between them is proved.
(ii) Whether domestic violence has been committed upon the complainant by the respondent : Perusal of complaint as well as Domestic Incident Report prima facie show that complainant has been a victim of domestic violence. The allegations and counter allegations leveled by the parties against each other shall be proved only after leading evidence.
4. Now dealing with Interim Monetary relief, the parties have filed their income affidavits and supporting documents in terms of Puneet Kaur Vs. Inderjit CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 5/17 Singh Sahwney judgment.
The complainant has made the below mentioned declarations:
(a) that she is has done B.A., LL.B.& diploma in computer software from TULEC,
(b) that earlier she used to work as one of the directors with SSPL Company from 01.04.2011 to19.08.2012 ,
(c) that the respondent promised to pay Rs. 60,000/ per month but paid only for 05 months and showed as payment towards remuneration of the complainant. The said amounts were in fact deposited in the joint account with PNB, Prasahnt Vihar but withdrawn by the respondent and his father,
(d) that she has no source of income except Rs. 2000/ per month as commission from AIEL and Rs. 320/ per annum as dividend from DSCL.
(e) that details of the FDRs and savings in the name of daughters are in the possession of the respondent, (f ) that she maintains a saving account with PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi and having ATM cum Debit cards of both joint and saving accounts,
(g) that the shared household is equipped with 2 LCD TVs with Tata Sky connection, IFB washing machine, 3 ACs, Godrej refrigerator, Whirlpool microwave, Piped gas, landline ad mobile phone,
(h) that she has employed one part time maid servant, (I) that the complainant uses the car purchased by her father,
(j) that she owns no Demat account, FDRs, PPF account in her name, no investment in debentures, bonds, units, mutual funds etc., no insurance policy etc.,
(k) that shares of the complainant with DSCL have been retained by the respondent, IBM laptop has been taken away of the respondent, entire gold, diamond and silver jewelleries are also in the possession of the respondent and his parents,
(l) that she maintains one landline phone and one Nokia Lumia mobile phone,
(m) that she is incurring monthly expenditure of approximately Rs. 108000/ per month, Rs. 20,000/ on birthdays and Rs.70,000/ approximately annually,
(n) that she and children travel by air, car, train, generally visit 5 star hotels/restaurants and private nursing homes for medical treatment, CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 6/17
(o) that she and children were using the membership of Roshanara club, DDA sports complex while staying together,
(p) that she has incurred Rs. 14,000/ on the dental treatment of elder daughter,
(q) that quarterly fee paid for the period April to June, 2013 is Rs. 20,000/ & Rs. 18,000/ and about Rs. 44,000/ for other charges towards books, uniform, tuition for the daughters,
(r) that she owns no Demat account, credit cards, frequent flyer card etc.
5. The complainant has filed following documents:
(i) copy of bank statement with PNB, Prashant Vihar and Civil Lines with the balance of Rs. 3,313 as on 07.12.2012 and Rs. 1,22,483 as on 15.12.2012 respectively,
(ii) copy of passport and PAN card, educational certificates
(iii) copy of ITRs , last paid bills for electricity, water, landline, telephone, mobile phone, dental treatment bill of Rs. 14,000/
(iv) copy of school fee slips for the quarter AprilJune, 2013,
(v) copy of profile of SSPL, certificate of incorporation, articles of association, balance sheet of SSPL as on 31/03/2009 and 31.03.2012, director's report dated 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011
(vi) printouts of website of einformation system, security and audit association, leapfrog academy, profile of Laila Malik,
(vii) detail of ISACA Bangalore chapter 13th Annual conference 23rd: 24th July 2010 attended by the respondent as MD of SSPL,
(viii) copy of Lease deed dated 04.06.1999, possession letter dated 05.06.03, lease agreement dated 11.02.04.
6. The respondent has made the following declarations :
(a) that he has not received his salary since March 2012 from the company due to financial constraints and lack of work/assignments and Delhi office is also facing closure in another couple of months,
(b) that he is dependent upon his father for his food and other day to day expenses while in Delhi,
(c) that he owns single immovable property in his name, which is occupied by the complainant, CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 7/17
(d) that the office of M/s SSPL at Mumbai has been closed down and guest house has also been handed over back due to loss in business and negative cash flow,
(e) that he is under personal liability of Rs.12,00,000/ which includes Rs. 10,00,000/ as unsecured loan, about Rs. 1.25 lacs payable towards credit card and Rs. 80,000/taken for payment to be made to the complainant as per bail order, (f ) that total liability of the company is about Rs.35 Lacs, which includes accrued salary payable to the respondent, other employees, loan taken his father, materials supplied to the company, rent payable for the Mumbai flat since January 2013 etc.
(g) that he has not been able to pay the electricity bills for Delhi office for the last three months and also maintenance charges to building association for the last two months
(h) that presently he has no work as complainant and her father have ruined his business circles . The only source of work/income to the company i.e. M/s ACL Services Ltd. has also terminated the work contract on 11.06.2012 due to professional misconduct of the complainant,
(i) that credit facility of the respondent with Roshnara club has been stopped due to financial crises. The membership fee of Rs 3927/ per annum for the last two years has remained unpaid for Rohini Sports complex and membership has already reached to termination,
(j) that three credit cards of SBI, American Express and ICICI bank have been blocked for dues to the tune of Rs.25,000/ & Rs. 60,000/ to Rs. 75,000/ respectively. The credit card with Citi Bank has been surrendered in April, 2010,
(k) that two LIC policies have been matured and total amount received was Rs. 21700/. He has not been able to pay premium of term insurance policy with Max New York life insurance since the year 2013 due to financial crises,
(l) that he is having two PPF accounts with SBI, Cannought circus , of which two daughters are the beneficiaries,
(m) that he has taken two LIC policies with maturity value of Rs. 50,000/ each,
(n) that he is residing in the house of his parents and dependent upon them for food and lodging,
(o) that after marriage, he and complainant had gone for honeymoon to CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 8/17 Dalhousie,
(p) that he has no rental income. He travels on the expenses of clients and charges goes into the company's account,
(q) that he has no personal mobile phone. The mobile phone he owns has been issued by the company and bill is paid by the company itself.
(r) that he has no FDRs or investment in his own name in the form of any security,
(s) that the complainant is a practicing lawyer and having her own independent income from practice and Amway.
7. The respondent has filed below mentioned documents:
(i) copy of bank statement Dena Bank with total deposits of Rs. 51,70,218 against withdrawal of Rs. 51,17,273 from 01.04.2008 to 06.06.2013 & IDBI with the balance of Rs. 872/ as on 01.07.2013
(ii) copy of ITRs for 200809 (gross total income of Rs. 127658) , 200910(Gross total income of Rs. 410695) , 201011( gross total income of Rs. 458964) , 201112, 20122013 (gross total income of Rs. 1163108),
(iii) copy of cash flow statement of company from 01.04.201231.03.2013 with Net flow of Rs.3,30,994.68
(iv) letter dated 14.06.2013 showing surrender of office premises,
(v) TDS certificate issued by the company to the complainant showing payment of Rs. 473924/
(vi) letter dated 08.08.2013 issued by DDA showing termination of membership in case of non payment of fee,
(vii) copy of passbook of PPF of daughters with the balance of Rs. 56,000/ as on 31.03.2013,
(viii) letter dated 06.08.2013 for surrender of guest house,
8. The complainant made the following arguments:
(a) that she was never allowed to work for gain and prevented from pursuing her profession, however after separation, she is forced to practice law but yet to have sufficient income being beginner ,
(b) that the respondent is a Chartered Accountant and specializes in the filed of Data Analysis & Eauditing Software consultancy and having office at Delhi, CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 9/17 Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore. He travels extensively by air and lives in 5 star hotels,
(c) that the respondent is having his own private limited company in the name of M/s SSPL, having own office at Barakambha Road, New Delhi and pays rent of Rs. 60,000/ per month. The respondent has admitted paying the rent of Rs. 51,600/ per month but not filed the rent agreement,
(d) that in Written Statement, he has admitted having office and guest house at Mumbai and paying rental amount of Rs. 50,000/ and Rs. 30,000/ per month respectively,
(e) that he is a member of DDA sports complex and Roshanara club. He drives a brand new Ford Fiesta car costing over Rs. 7.5 Lacs. He also has several credit cards and corporate account with Hotel Lalit and other hotels. He is also member of several International Organizations, (f ) that once the dispute started, the respondent claimed to have become a pauper . He has claimed his business coming down, closure of office at Mumbai and surrender of guest house. He also stopped paying his credit card bills, maintenance amount to the society, subscription for clubs. This has been done with the dual purpose of showing himself as pauper and to harass the complainant through recovery agents being remain out of Delhi,
(g) that documents placed on record show that he is a Board Member with e information system, security and audit association as its Secretary, having its registered office at M91, CP i.e. registered office of SSPL. The said organization had organized events on 1920 December, 2013 sponsored by SSPL and Leapfrog Academy. The document shows that the website is managed and designed by SSPL,
(h) that the documents pertaining to Leapfrog Academy show that it is engaged in the business and service with big MNCs and respondent acts as its Mentor. The testimonials of Ms. Monica Thakur and Himanshi Singhal shows that SSPL is at work with through Leapfrog academy and therefore the respondent's claim that SSPL is bereft of business is false and incorrect, (I) the profile of Laila Malik shows that she is based in Dubai and working for SSPL, which goes on to prove that SSPL is operating through Laila Malik from CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 10/17 Dubai.
9. The respondent made the following arguments:
(i) that the complainant has not been able to show an iota of evidence which could show that he is a high flyer, having huge financial worth, leading five star life etc.,
(ii) that he has filed on record all documents in support of his true worth. He is having only 45 % share in SSPL,
(iii) that the respondent is having only one immovable property, which is occupied by the complainant,
(iv) that the company at one point of time was employing more than 30 employees and now no employee is engaged,
(v) that he used to give Rs.1015 thousand per month for household expenses. During this time, the complainant was practicing law in various courts of Delhi and also doing private Amway business,
(vi) that the complainant has herself admitted paying Rs.4050 thousand per month towards legal expenses but not disclosed the source. She is also having share in HUF properties worth Rs.125 Crores and recently bought one Volkswegan Polo Car. She has not given details as to how the money received from the respondent is being spent.
10. The complainant has pressed for following reliefs:
(a) Protection order dated 21.01.2013 to continue till further orders,
(b) Monetary relief @ Rs. 2,50,000/per month towards monthly expenses for herself and children,
(c) directing the respondent, their associates, attorney, relatives from transferring , selling, alienating , encumbering , disposing off and or renting out to create third party interest in any manner whatsoever in the matrimonial house.
11. The reasons for the decision on interim application in favour of the complainant and minor daughters: Though the children have not been cited as copetitioners but admittedly on the date, when the petition was filed , the children were in the custody of their mother. Moreover, the scheme of the act is to be seen as whole. It is not necessary that the child/children should be pleaded as a party. The relief can be granted to CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 11/17 the child/children without being impleaded as a party. The relief can be granted not only to the complainant but also to the child/children. On reading section 20 & 21 of the act, it is transpired that not only the complainant , but any child or children may be granted relief. The court is required to keep in mind the interest and welfare of the child /children even if not a party. Therefore, orders as regard custody or the maintenance etc. can be passed even if the child is not a party in the application filed under the Act. Hence , in the present case also, the minor daughters are entitled to seek relief without being impleaded as a party.
12. The court is of the view that the respondent being husband of the complainant and father of the minor daughters, is duty bound to maintain them as per means available to him. He cannot escape from this responsibility on the pretext that he has suffered losses in the business and left with no money to maintain the family. He also can not shirk this responsibility on the pretext that the complainant being a qualified practicing lawyer, is competent enough to earn for herself as well for the children. It is true that in today's scenario, even women are expected to shoulder the responsibility to run the house but this responsibility can be performed only if they are economically empowered. In the present case, though the complainant is a practicing lawyer at various courts of Delhi but the fact remains that she is not an established lawyer. It is very much understandable as to how difficult it is to have clientel within short span of time. The money earned through Amway business is meager and highly insufficient to meet the expenses. Whereas the minor daughters can not sustain themselves without there being provisions made for their maintenance. Hence, the complainant as well as minor daughters are entitled to seek interim maintenance for themselves.
13. Quantum of interim maintenance to be awarded in favour of the complainant & minor daughters , the complainant, on the one hand has consistently maintained that the respondent is not truthful in disclosing his actual income and tried to portray himself as pauper in calculative manner that he is left with no money after loss in the business in order to escape from the liabilities and to defeat legitimate rights of the complainant and children. The respondent, on the other hand has also maintained that he has suffered heavy losses in the business and is under personal as well official liability of over Rs. 47 CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 12/17 Lacs.
14. The complainant has alleged the respondent to be indulged in falsification and fabrication of accounts. She has further alleged that the respondent has deliberately not made the payments of premiums, credit card bills, club memberships etc. in order to show himself as pauper and to avoid his liabilities. She has further alleged that the respondent deliberately shut his business outside Delhi to avoid his liabilities towards the family but various documents placed on record show otherwise. The said documents clearly show that he occupies very responsible posts meant for CAs & is still engaged in the business in India as well outside India. In this regard, the court is of the view that the complainant is required to prove these allegations and claims by leading evidence, however, certain adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent.
15. On the other hand, In support of his claims, the respondent has also filed many documents . The cash flow statement of the company shows negative net flow of the company, which is about Rs. 3,407,937.43/ for the year 201314. whereas the cash flow was Rs.3,30,994.68/ in the year 2012. The document containing share holders funds and share capital shows that as on 31.03.2014 there are 03 shareholders holding more than 5% shares out of whom, the respondent owns 7000 shares in the company amounting to Rs. 7,00,000.00/. The Minute Book dated 03.01.2013 further shows at Item No.3 about withdrawal of remuneration payable to Managing Director, which prima facie proves the claim of the respondent that he has not been paid salary since 2013. As per balance sheet , the net loss for the year 2014 has been Rs. 2,409,401.02 and current liabilities are Rs. 3,181,493.45 , which has increased from Rs.2,327,585.32 for the year 2013. The document is dully audited and certified hence the question of its genuineness does not arise and the claim of juggling the figures and fudging the company records are again required to be proved through evidence.
16. It be observed that the challan form of Department of Provident Fund of M/s SSPL dated 28.04.2014 also shows that currently no employee is engaged with the company, which prima facie proves the respondent's claim that the company is not in position to engage employees for office work. The termination letter dated 11th July, 2012 addressed to M/s SSPL by ACL Services (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. also supports the respondent's claim that work contract has been terminated. The CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 13/17 credit card statement of ICICI Bank shows that more than Rs.95,000/ is due against the respondent. The CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report shows the CIBIL Transunion score as 583 and Personal Loan Score as 548, which prima facie indicates with long credit history of the respondent. The credit card statements show that Citi Bank credit card has been surrendered and American Express, SBI and ICICI credit cards are blocked for many months. The premium receipts in respect to LIC policies show that the same were taken by the father of the respondent about 20 years back. The amount received is reflected from the bank account statement. Other policies receipts show that the premiums have not been paid for 2013. The affidavit as well as letter disclose that the Mumbai office has been closed and guest house has also been surrendered. The copy of RC shows that the Ford car has been taken for official purpose and it is not in the name of the respondent.
17. Amidst all these, the court is constrained to draw some adverse inference against the respondent. The respondent has admitted having M/s SSPL office at Cannought Place and paying the rent of about Rs. 51,600/ per month but he has not furnished the rent agreement. The office of the respondent is situated at a posh area like Cannought place with high commercial value. The respondent has not come up with explanation as to how the company manages its rental amount alone. A company with handsome income can only run from such places. However no documents have been filed by the complainant to prove that the respondent is having offices and clientel at Chennai & Bangalore as well . Though the respondent has mentioned the names of people from whom, he has taken personal loan and claimed the payment to have been made through account payee cheque but he has not furnished the bank statements reflecting the said transactions. The respondent has admitted having partnership firm with M/s Seth Services but claimed that no business in the said firm has been carried out in the last 05 years and having debit balance of Rs.38,000/ but he has not placed the records of the said Partnership Firm in support of the claims.
18. The respondent has admitted being sleeping partner with M/s GSA & Associates for 5% but again no record has been produced in support of the claim and for the purpose of ascertaining the actual status of the respondent in the Firm. ITR alone is not sufficient to prove the entire claims. Though the CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 14/17 respondent has blamed complainant's father and complainant for spreading false and malicious information about the conduct and character of the respondent and also professional misconduct of the complainant resulted into the loss in business but there is no evidence on the record to prove the same. This particular claim can be proved only after leading evidence. It is noticeable that the payments of credit card bills, subscription for clubs, premium for insurance policies etc. were stopped only after filing of the case. The respondent has not denied the fact of being board member and Secretary with einformation system, security and audit association, which also goes on to show his credibility in the business circle. If at all his credentials were adverse then he would not have been selected for such a responsible post. His association with the said organization and recent events under the sponsorship of SSPL suggest that the prestige of the company has not gone down to such extent that it lost complete credibility in the circle. The respondent has not offered any cogent explanation with regard to his association with the Leapfrog academy. The testimonials of clients and profile of Laila Malik also prima facie proves credibility of the company. The ITR for the year 201213 shows the gross annual income of the respondent more than Rs.11 Lacs but ITRs generally do not reflect the true income of the assessees. It is also noticeable that the respondent has not placed the details of his travellings within and outside India, which should also be read against him.
19. Though the complainant has claimed the income of the respondent in 0708 figures but sufficient materials have not been brought on record to substantiate the claims in this respect. It is noticeable that the complainant and children have already been provided shelter and they have been enjoying the peaceful possession of the same. The complainant is not required to incur expenses on the accommodation so the fixation of maintenance amount shall be in commensurate to the requirements of the complainant and income of the respondent.
20. Having regard to the status and responsibilities of the parties and materials placed on record, the respondent is directed to pay a composite sum of Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the present petition till its disposal. The amount shall include all the incidental expenses such as maintenance charges etc. The payment CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 15/17 shall be deposited in the bank account of complainant by 10th of every month. Maintenance awarded in any other proceedings shall be liable to adjustment.
21. Protection Order dated 21.01.2013, shall continue & the respondent shall not dispossess the complainant & children without due process of law till further orders.
22. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to expression on the merits of the case. Put up for CE on 17.09.2015.
23. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties and be sent to SHO concerned for intimation.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.06.2015 (Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court THC/Delhi/06.06.2015 CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 16/17 CC No.09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Seema Seth Vs. Nishith Seth 06.06.2015 Present: Ld. Proxy Counsel Ms. Parul Malik for the complainant Respondent with Ld. Counsel Sh. Hanu Bhaskar Vide separate detailed orders applications of the parties seeking interim relief as well as entry to shared household are disposed of.
Now to come up for CE on 17.09.2015. Complainant is directed to file her evidence by way of affidavit with advance copy of the same to the opposite party a week prior to next date of hearing.
It is made clear that only 03 opportunities shall be given to the complainant for leading CE.
(Mona Tardi Kerketta) MM02/Mahila Court THC/Delhi/06.06.2015 CC No. 09/1/13 PS: Civil Lines Smt. Seema Seth vs. Sh. Nishith Seth 17/17