Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Sharma vs Manju Sharma on 19 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN
ASJ/SPCIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
OUTER DISTRICT:ROHIIN COURTS:DELHI
Criminal Appeal No.: 05/2011
Unique ID No.: 02404R0119852011
SANJEEV SHARMA
........................APPELLANT
VS.
MANJU SHARMA
....................RESPONDENT
Date of institution of Revision: 19.04.2011
Date when arguments concluded : 13.05.2011
Date when Judgment pronounced : 19.05.2011
JUDGMENT
1 Appellant Sanjeev Sharma is aggrieved by order dated 04.04.2011 whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3,000 per month to the complainant/ respondent from the date of filing of petition till final disposal.
2 Let me give a brief backdrop of the case.
3 Respondent Smt. Manju Sharma was married to appellant Sanjeev
Kumar Sharma. Marriage was solemnized on 2.11.2007 in Delhi and
Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 1
of 7
according to Manju Sharma, she was regularly harassed, humiliated and tortured, both mentally and physically, on account of insufficient dowry. She filed a complaint u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as said Act) seeking various reliefs. Simultaneously, she moved an application u/s 23 of said Act for grant of interim relief praying that appellant be directed to pay her a sum of Rs. 12,500 per month. Notice was issued to the Protection Officer and thereafter, appellant was also summoned.
4 Appellant appeared before the Ld. Trial Court and filed reply. Rejoinder was also filed by Manju Sharma.
5 It would be also appropriate to mention here that, at one point of time, matter has been referred to mediation and parties had even agreed to settle their matrimonial disputes but such settlement did not work. 6 Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.04.2011 directed respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month from the date of petition till final orders as interim relief.
7 Such order is under challenge.
8 Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Ld. Counsel for appellant has contended that Ld. Trial Court erred in granting maintenance from the date of filing Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 2 of 7 of petition. She has also argued that appellant was always ready, willing and eager to keep the respondent but his all efforts were rebuffed by Manju Sharma and, therefore, she cannot be permitted to claim any maintenance. She has also argued that maintenance @ Rs. 3,000 has been quantified on substantially elevated side. It has been argued that Ld. Trial Court did not consider that appellant was a man of meager income and his salary was only Rs. 3,000 per month. She also contended that since appellant had been put behind the bars at the behest of Manju only, he lost his such job as well and was living in acute penury and, therefore, was not in any position to make such payment. It has also been argued that Manju Sharma is a Computer Diploma holder and working as teacher in a school and she does not require any maintenance. 9 All such contentions of appellant have been refuted by Sh. Kaushik, Ld. Counsel for respondent.
10 I have carefully gone through the entire trial court record. 11 Perusal of Trial Court Record would show that reply was also filed by appellant to the application moved u/s 23 of said Act and in his such reply, he replied that earlier, he was working as clerk/munshi in Tis Hazari Courts and was earning Rs. 6,000 per month and thereafter, he started working as helper in a factory and started earning Rs. 3,000 per month Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 3 of 7 12 It would be also important to mention that on the date of the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court recorded statement of Sanjeev Sharma in which he claimed that he had done course of ITI from Muradnagar and earlier, he was working in Bansal Wire Industries, Mohan Nagar, UP as an electrician and was earning Rs. 4,800 per month. He also deposed that since she was sent to jail by the complainant, he had to leave that job.
13 As far as grant of maintenance from the date of filing is concerned, I do not find any fault in such order.
14 Only thing, which is required to be seen and assessed, is whether the interim maintenance quantified by Ld. Trial Court is reasonable or excessive? Appellant has merely claimed that he is not working anywhere. He is not an illiterate person. He has done course of ITI and is thus a qualified technician. He has not bothered to give any proof of his previous income and has vaguely claimed that earlier, he was earning Rs. 6,000 as munshi and thereafter Rs. 4,800 while working in factory and his last drawn income was Rs. 3,000 per month. He has also claimed that presently, he was unemployed.
15 It is normally experienced in such type of matters that there is a propensity on the part of such husband to suppress his real income purely to avoid and evade the liability of making any payment to his estranged Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 4 of 7 spouse.
16 Appellant baldly claimed that his wife was working but did not supply any particular and Manju Sharma categorically claimed before the Trial Court that she was unemployed and was totally dependent upon her parents.
17 Even if it is assumed for a moment that appellant has lost his job and is not working anywhere as of now, he cannot run away from his legal and to some extent moral responsibility. Liability of husband to pay maintenance arises out of matrimonial obligation and not under any contractual obligation and, therefore, plea of 'no means to pay' has to be rejected at the very threshold. Expression 'means' does not signify only visible means, such as, real property or definite employment. If a man is healthy and ablebodied, he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife, child, etc. The Courts have gone to the extent of laying down that the husband may be insolvent or a professional beggar or a minor or a monk, but he must support his wife so long as he is able bodied and can eke out his livelihood. In CHANDER PARKASH BODH RAJ V. SMT. SHAILA RANI CHANDER PARKASH AIR 1968 DELHI 174, it has been held as under :
".....an ablebodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child, and that he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 5 of 7 enough to be able to maintain them according to family standards. It is for such ablebodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court, the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
18 Chart showing minimum wages for different categories of workers as applicable in Delhi with effect from 01.02.2011 is as under:
Category Minimum Wages Minimum Wages
of Workers per Day (in Rs) per Month (in Rs)
Unskilled 234 6084
Semi Skilled 259 6734
Skilled 285 7410
Non Matriculate 259 6734
Matriculate 285 7410
Graduate 310 8060
19 Keeping in mind the educational qualification of appellant, grant of
maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month does not seem to be excessive from any angle.
20 Thus, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
21 Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 6
of 7
22 Trial Court Record along with copy of Judgment be sent to Ld.
Trial Court.
23 File pertaining to appeal be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
Today i.e. on 19th May, 2011
(MANOJ JAIN)
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
OUTER DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma page 7
of 7