Delhi District Court
Deepak Sobti vs The State on 30 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE04 & SPECIAL JUDGE SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2015
ID No. 02406R0202282015
Deepak Sobti
S/o Late Mr Shashi Raj Sobti
R/o I52, First Floor, Lajpat NagarII
New Delhi110024 ......Appellant
Versus
1 The State
Through Govt. of NCT, Delhi
2 Ms. Meeta Sobti
W/o Mr. Deepak Sobti
R/o I37B, Ground Floor
Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi110024 .......Respondents
Instituted on : 30.06.2015
Argued on : 29.10.2015
Decided on : 30.10.2015
JUDGMENT
1 Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 19.5.2015 passed by the court of Ms. Monika Saroha, Ld. MM (Mahila Court), SED, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby appellant had been directed to pay an interim maintenance in favour of the respondent/wife @ Rs. 15,000/ per month and @ Rs.30,000/ per month for the minor daughter to be paid by the appellant w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition, till final disposal of the petition under section 12 of DV Act pending before it, after assessing his income to be more than Rs. 1 lac after making necessary deductions.
2 Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant had Deepak Sobti Vs Meeta Sobti CA No. 159 of 2015 1/6 preferred the present appeal. 3 The parties are facing each other in a legal battle under DV Act.
Factum of marital relationship between the parties and birth of the child out of the said wedlock has not been disputed or denied. However, the appellant had challenged the impugned order on the following amongst various other grounds: That the Ld. MM had not applied her judicial mind while passing the impugned order which was passed without considering the facts available on record and had passed the order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the facts in correct perspective and as such it was contrary to the law of land which had resulted into causing grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant.
The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the Ld. MM had wrongly assessed the income of the appellant as more than Rs. 1,00,000/ per month after making necessary deductions by relying upon the divorce petition filed by the appellant, considering the bank statements of the appellant for the year 2013 and also by relying upon the letter of appointment of the appellant for the year 2009.
It was further contended that there was no justification in awarding an interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 15,000/ per month to respondent/ wife who was also having her own independent income and a sum of Rs. Rs. 30,000/ per month to his school going child, despite the fact of assessing her school fee to be only Rs. 5000/ per month.
4 Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. MM and the Deepak Sobti Vs Meeta Sobti CA No. 159 of 2015 2/6 appeal filed by the appellant was thus liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits.
5 I have perused the memorandum as well as grounds of appeal taken by the appellant, heard the Ld. counsel for the respondent and have also perused the trial court order.
6 Since no one from the side of appellant had come forward to address arguments despite granting opportunities, hence, I am constrained to dispose off the present appeal on the basis of material available on record. 7 After going through the entire record placed before me, I have no hesitation in holding that the income affidavit , as filed by the appellant before the Ld Trial Court mentioning his income to be NIL, was certainly an incorrect and blatantly false claim on his part and it appeared to have been filed on record only with a view to avoid his liability to pay the maintenance to his wife and minor daughter as well , wherein the appellant husband had deliberately suppressed the material facts regarding his actual earnings and total income, the Ld. Trial Court was, therefore, certainly under a legal obligation to assess the same by taking into consideration all the relevant and material facts available on record which could have some bearing in assessing his income.
8 In assessing the income of the appellant/husband, the Ld. MM had rightly taken into consideration the bank statements of the appellant placed on record by the respondent/wife which the appellant himself had admitted to be genuine in the divorce petition filed by him before Ld. Family Court, documents pertaining to the commissions paid to the proprietorship firm of the Deepak Sobti Vs Meeta Sobti CA No. 159 of 2015 3/6 appellant /husband namely "INVESTVISER", the letter of appointment issued to appellant by his earlier employers 'Ariva' which had shown his salary as Rs. 9,09,500/ in the year 2009. All these facts and documents certainly gave an indication regarding his earnings, spendings and living status maintained by him. 9 I also find no merit in the contention of the appellant regarding the unjustified criteria adopted by the Ld. Trial Court in awarding the quantum of maintenance to his wife who is respondent herein.
10 In awarding the quantum of interim maintenance, the income of the appellant and income of the respondent were required to be taken into consideration alongwith the number of dependents of the respective parties and thereafter, an amount which might have appeared to be reasonable to the Ld. Trial Court was required to be awarded so as to meet the ends of justice. 11 It is the inherent and fundamental principle of awarding an interim maintenance that the court has to see that the woman/wife and her children are entitled to lead a life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband, and that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. It is a measure of social justice and grant of maintenance does not mean a bare survival. Quantum should be adequate so as to enable the wife to live her life with dignity.
12 Further since, it is a moral and legal obligation of a father to provide financial assistance for basic amenities like education, food, shelter , medical expenses and other necessities, alongwith an environment for a holistic Deepak Sobti Vs Meeta Sobti CA No. 159 of 2015 4/6 development of child. A father can not leave a child as a destitute and condemn him/her to lead or live a life of orphan in penury. Further, in view of the affidavit of income and assets as filed on record and taking into consideration the factual matrix of the present case, some quantum of maintenance in respect of minor was also required to be assessed and decided which seemed to be necessary for the physical and emotional development and to meet contemporary needs of a child. However, this amount of Rs. 30,000/ as awarded by the Ld. Trial Court in favour of the minor child, in the absence of providing any breakup of the heads under which it was so awarded, seems to be on a bit higher side and in my opinion, to meet the ends of justice, an amount of Rs.15,000/ per month towards the child's maintenance would have sufficed the purpose.
13 Thus, taking into consideration the income of the appellant as assessed by the Ld. Trial Court being more than Rs. 1,00,000/ per month after necessary deductions and the appellant having only two dependents namely his wife and minor daughter , there is nothing perceptible in the order dated 19.05.2015, except awarding of an interim maintenance of a sum of Rs. 30,000/ per month to his minor school going daughter which would have shown that the order was either perverse or erroneous, but instead, was based upon proper appreciation of facts available on record and was an endevour on the part of Ld. Trial Court to do substantial justice to the parties.
14 As already discussed in the preceding para, the said amount of Rs. 30,000/ per month already stands modified to Rs.15,000/ per month as awarded in favour of minor child and the impugned order stands modified to this extent Deepak Sobti Vs Meeta Sobti CA No. 159 of 2015 5/6 alone.
15 Before parting with the case, it is pertinent to mention here that one must also bear in mind that the impugned order is only deciding the quantum of interim maintenance and this aspect is still left to be decided finally after the parties adduce their respective evidences before the Ld. Trial Court after appreciation of which, the Ld. Trial Court shall be at liberty either to modify its present order any further or to recall or set aside it, as it deems fit in the given set of facts and circumstances of the case and legal propositions advanced before it. 16 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order stands modified to the extent that the amount of interim maintenance as awarded in favour of minor child stands quantified at Rs. 15,000/ per month.
17 The appeal as filed is accordingly partly allowed and stands disposed off in terms of aforesaid observations.
18 TCR, if any be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court through Ld. CMM(SED), with a copy of the judgment for its information and necessary compliance.
19 Appeal file be consigned to record room after compliance of all other necessary formalities in this regard.
Announced in the
open court on
30th October, 2015 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
Additional Sessions Judge04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South East, New Delhi
Deepak Sobti Vs Meeta Sobti CA No. 159 of 2015 6/6