A K Trivedi vs Pushpa Trivedi on 9 July, 2025

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

A K Trivedi vs Pushpa Trivedi on 9 July, 2025

1. The present revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Sections 439 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 is directed against impugned order dated 10th March, 2025 passed by the Family Court, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MT No. 56296/2016, titled as "Smt. Pushpa Trivedi & Ors. v. A.K. Trivedi". By the impugned order, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the Respondent and the parties' children.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

2.1 The Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 8th May, 1987, and two sons were born from their marriage, both of whom are now adults. On 1 "BNSS"

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 1 of 8

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25 account of irreconcilable differences and ongoing marital discord, the Petitioner obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against the Respondent in 2008, which was later set aside on 7th September, 2009. Although the parties resumed cohabitation in 2009, they eventually separated again in 2013. 2.2 Following the separation, the Respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance for herself and their two sons. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Respondent moved an application seeking interim maintenance. Pursuant thereto, the Family Court, after considering the income and expenses of both parties, passed the impugned order dated 10th March, 2025, awarding interim maintenance in her favour.

3. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present revision petition, challenging the impugned order on the following grounds:

3.1 The impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the factual matrix of the case. The Family Court erred in awarding relief to the Respondent despite being financially supported by her two adult, earning sons. It is contended that interim maintenance is intended to support a spouse who is unable to maintain herself and lacks independent income.

However, this condition is not satisfied in the Respondent's case, as she receives support from her children.

3.2 In contrast, the Petitioner is without a stable source of income, and is currently dependent on friends, relatives, and charitable organizations for his sustenance and has been unlawfully ousted from his own residence. This situation is further aggravated by the Respondent's alleged unlawful retention of his personal documents and property.

3.3 The Family Court, in the impugned order, noted that the Respondent CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 2 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25 has been residing in the house purchased by the Petitioner and has been living separately since 23rd April, 2013. It is the Petitioner's case that the Respondent deserted him and continues to deny him entry into the said house. Therefore, having voluntarily withdrawn from his company, the Respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance.

4. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions, but remains unpersuaded. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the order of the Family Court dated 10th March, 2025, addresses merely an interim arrangement of maintenance, which is, by its very nature, a temporary arrangement meant to operate during the pendency of proceedings. Such orders are provisional and open to variation upon a comprehensive evaluation of evidence at the final stage. At the interim stage, the Family Court necessarily relied upon disclosures made by the parties through their affidavits and supporting documents, to assess their financial capacities, and made the following observations:

"7. The Court has examined all the relevant facts and circumstances necessary for just and proper disposal of the application for interim maintenance, under consideration.

8. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that respondent sold Flat No. 14, Sector 3, Rohini and subsequently purchased the house no. 45 at Pragati Apartment, West Enclave. Pitampura using the proceeds from the said sale and petitioners arc residing in the said house. He has also submitted that respondent himself admitted before the DV court that he is working as Director in UC Systems Pvt L td on 08-11-2013 on the basis of which ad interim maintenance was decided. Respondent has also sold one property/House No. 6A, 1st Floor Bihari Sadan, Kalideh Road for an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- in Tehsil Vrindavan, District Mathura whereas actual value of the property is approximately Rs. 60 Lacs and to avoid his income being reflected in his account, he had used a forged PAN Card and Aadhar Card with a different name for the aforesaid properly. Although respondent claims to have resigned from the UC Systems and has never disclosed his shares in the UC Systems. But as per the latest record dated 31-03-2023 signed by the Directors, respondent remains CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 3 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25 to be the highest equity shareholder of the said company. Respondent also owns immovable property in Raebareli. The income of the respondent from all the sources is not less than Rs. 20,00,000/- per annum.

9. In support or his assertion, ld. counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the sale deed dated 04-09-2018. list of shareholders or company UC Systems and orders of' Ms. Anu Grover Baliga, Special Judge, CBI, Dwarka Courts.

10 As per the income affidavit of the respondent, he has no source of income. Regarding the property, he has stated that he has small piece of agriculture land of 0.45 Bigha but he has no income from the said land. However, the respondent has neither disclosed the details of the agriculture land nor he has tiled any supporting documents thereof. He has stated that he has a house but the same has been mortgaged. In column no 4 of Part G of his affidavit of income, the respondent has very conveniently stated that he had purchased some shares in the past but details arc with the petitioners whereas as per list or shareholders as on 31-03-2023 signed by Directors or UC System India Pvt Ltd, respondent is having 85,200 shares in the said company and value of each share is being shown as Rs. 10/-. The petitioner also owns 11,100 shares jointly with one Rakesh Kumar in the above said company which has been concealed by the respondent in his affidavit of income.

11 Petitioners have placed on record one sale deed dated 04-09- 2018 which transpires that the respondent has sold one property at Vrindawan, District Mathura for a sale consideration or Rs. 15,90,000/- to one Anita Tyagi but the same has not been disclosed by the respondent in his affidavit of income. Further, petitioners have also placed on record some orders or Ms. Anu Grover Baliga, Special Judge, CBI, Dwarka Courts and as per the said orders, the UC System India Ltd. received an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- from the appellant/Pankaj Sharma in CA No. 10/ 15, 11/15 and 12/15 which has also not been disclosed hy the respondent in his affidavit of income.

12 Respondent has also stated in his affidavit or income that he has taken loan or Rs. 50 Lacs. The said contention or the respondent is not tenable and liable to be rejected in view of the settled proposition of law that respondent can not drive any advantage from the fact that he has liability or loan. In judgment 'Mukesh Kumar Vs. Reka Rani & Anr' 2018 (3) RCR Criminal 135, it was held that a person can not be permitted to wriggle out or his statutory liability by way or taking huge loans and reducing the substantial amount of his salary for the payment of the same every month In his affidavit or income, respondent has also claimed that petitioner no. 1 is working and she has sufficient means to maintain CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 4 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25 herself, however, respondent has failed to place on record any document to prove the same.

13 In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the respondent has not disclosed his actual income and has tried his level best to conceal his actual income as well as his immovable properties. It is settled proposition or law that in matrimonial disputes it is seen that parties often do not disclose their actual income to the Court purportedly to avoid the liabilities of maintenance. Thus, it is open for the Court to dete1mine maintenance based on their status and file style and some guess work is also permissible. In Judgment 'Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge Dehradoon & Ors (1997) SCC 7 it was held that when diverse claims were made hy the parties, some conjectures and some guess work by the Court is permissible. In Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegdc 2007 SCC online Delhi 622, it was held that some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources and correct sources arc not disclosed. Therefore, the income of the respondent from all the sources as discussed above, is assessed as Rs. 35,000/- per month for disposal or the present interim maintenance application. It is admitted case or the petitioners that petitioner no. 2 has already attained the age of majority prior to filing of the present petition. The respondent being an earning person is allowed to retain two parts of his income for himself against two parts that are required to be paid to the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 to reasonably maintain the same standard of living. Hence, respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 3 as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 27-04-2013 till he was minor i.e. 31-08-2015 and a sum of Rs. 11 ,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 1 as interim maintenance from the date of filing or the application till 31-08-2015. Since the respondent has liability to maintain the petitioner no. 1 only from 01-09-201 5 therefore, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the petitioner no. 1 from 01-09- 2015 5 with increase of 5% every ) car commencing from 01-09-2016 till pendency or the present petition. The said interim maintenance shall be deposited by the respondent directly in the hank account of the petitioner no. 1 by 10th day or each calender month.

14. Respondent is also directed to clear the arrears of the interim maintenance within six months. However, the current interim maintenance be complied with immediately for the running month and each succeeding months, during the pendency or the petition unless varied or modified, as per law.

15. It is made clear that the amount of Interim Maintenance awarded by this Court, is liable to be adjusted/accounted for in the eventuality of any other maintenance order that has been or may be passed in any other legal proceedings, as per law.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 5 of 8

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25

16. The application filed by the petitioners. for grant of interim maintenance, is allowed and accordingly stands disposed of."

5. In evaluating the Petitioner's financial status, the Family Court took into account his income affidavit along with documents submitted by the Respondent revealing his assets. The Petitioner contended before the Family Court that he was residing in an Ashram, and had no source of income. He specifically argued that he had resigned from his previous company, UC System India, and had no concerns with the same. However, the most recent list of the Company's shareholders indicated that the Petitioner remained the largest equity holder, possessing 85,200 individual shares and 11,100 joint shares of the Company, each valued at INR 10/-. Additionally, based on a sale deed submitted by the Respondent, the Family Court further noted that the Petitioner had sold a property in Mathura for a consideration of INR 15,90,000/-. Given the Petitioner's failure to disclose the aforesaid details of his income and immovable assets, the Family Court rightly concluded that the Petitioner had attempted to conceal his actual income. Applying a reasoned and informed estimation, the Court assessed his income as INR 35,000/- per month. This determination is consistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court, which recognise that parties often fail to disclose accurate details or suppress vital information regarding their income. In such instances, the courts are justified in making reasonable estimates to assess the amount to be awarded.2

6. Furthermore, although the Petitioner claimed that the Respondent was employed and had adequate means to support herself, he failed to produce 2 Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622, Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 6 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25 any documentary evidence to substantiate this assertion. As regards the Petitioner's contention that their adult sons are now gainfully employed and capable of financially supporting their mother, it is essential to underscore that the financial independence or earning capacity of the major sons does not, in any manner, absolve the Petitioner of his obligation and responsibility to maintain his spouse. Accordingly, the Court does not find merit in any of the grounds urged by the Petitioner, warranting interference with the impugned order.

7. Rather, in the opinion of the Court, the Family Court took into account the respective ages of the parties' sons and determined the quantum of maintenance to be awarded in the following manner:

7.1. Mr. Piyush, the elder son, had attained the age of majority prior to the institution of the petition before the Family Court. Accordingly, no maintenance was awarded to him.

7.2. Mr. Kshitiz, the younger son, attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court, therefore, granted him interim maintenance at the rate of INR 7,000/- per month, payable from the date of the application until he reached the age of majority, i.e., 1st September, 2015. 7.3. Insofar as the Respondent is concerned, the Family Court awarded her interim maintenance of INR 11,000/- per month up to 1st September, 2015.

Thereafter, considering that the Petitioner's responsibility was limited solely to maintaining the Respondent, the Court enhanced the maintenance to INR 12,000/- per month, with an annual increment of 5%, thereby aligning the maintenance with prevailing economic conditions and inflation.

8. Pertinently, while computing the quantum of interim maintenance, the Family Court expressly observed: "The respondent being an earning person CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 7 of 8 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25 is allowed to retain two parts of his income for himself against two parts that are required to be paid to the petitioner no. I and petitioner no. 3 to reasonably maintain the same standard of living." This observation reflects the Court's adherence to the principle of equitable distribution of financial resources within the family, as laid down by this Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra.3

9. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award of INR 7,000/- as maintenance to the then minor son, and INR 11,000/- subsequently enhanced to INR 12,000/- with periodic enhancements to the Respondent, is fair, just, and reasonable, having due regard to the financial status of the parties and the principles enunciated by judicial precedents.

10. As already emphasised, the award of interim maintenance is a temporary relief, intended to ensure subsistence and basic financial security pending final adjudication. It does not preclude either party from seeking modification or variation of the amount based on the evidence led during trial. Therefore, the observations of this Court shall not prejudice the rights of either of the parties at the stage of final adjudication.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 9, 2025/ab 3 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 304/2025 Page 8 of 8

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2025 at 21:50:25

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders