Delhi High Court - Orders
Sonali Bhatia vs Abhivansh Narang on 13 September, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021
SONALI BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Mr.Anirudh
Jamwal and Ms.Kritika Anand, Advs.
versus
ABHIVANSH NARANG ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rosemary Raju, Adv.
Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 13.09.2021
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent who is present in person and Ms. Raju who is representing him. The petitioner was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month, apart from litigation expenses of Rs.75,000/- vide order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts. The payment was to be made from the date of filing of application which was 07.08.2018. The arrears were required to be cleared within 6 months and as of today an amount of Rs.14,05,000/- is due and payable to the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent has not paid a single rupee till today. The respondent preferred MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2021 before this Court. While issuing notice in the respondent's MAT.APP.(F.C.), this Court on 11.02.2021 directed the respondent to continue to comply with the order passed by the Family Court in the meantime. Despite that direction issued by us, the respondent did not comply with the order and did not pay even a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 1 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14 single rupee thereafter to the petitioner herein. The respondent has withdrawn the said MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2021 on 09.09.2021 and consequently, the challenge to the order dated 22.12.2020 at the behest of the respondent does not survive.
2. The present contempt petition has been preferred on account of the alleged and deliberate non-compliance of our order dated 11.02.2021 passed in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2021 and also the Order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Ld. Principle Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi in HMA No. 638/2018. Upon issuance of notice the respondent has filed reply. Along with the reply the respondent has placed on record the statement of account of his bank account maintained with State Bank of India in the name of his firm M/s. Equal Minerals for the period 01.08.2020 to 01.09.2020, 01.12.2020 to 31.12.2020, 01.01.2021 to 31.01.2021 01.02.2021 to 04.03.2021, and 01.03.2021 to 31.03.2021.
3. At this stage, we may observe that the petitioner has filed a rejoinder wherein the petitioner has brought on record the fact that the respondent deliberately did not disclose either before the Family court or before us the status of several other bank accounts maintained by him particulars of which could be gathered from the respondent's Income Tax Return. The relevant averments of the petitioner contained in the rejoinder read as follows:
Bank Accounts of Whether declared by Periods for which the Respondent Respondent in his Financial bank statements not Affidavit filed SBI A/c no. I April, 15 to May, 00000030007009989 Yes 15 (Self) Oct. 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 2 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14 SBI A/c no. Sept, 15 to March, 16 00000010004630309 Yes Sept, 16 to March, 17 (M/s Equal Minerals) April, 17 to March, 18 June, 18 to Oct, 18 Indian Overseas No Not a single (A/c no not known) (revealed from his ITRs) statement filed Axis Bank A/c No Not a single (A/c no not known) (revealed from his ITRs) statement filed Punjab National bank Not a single Joint A/c no Yes statement filed 3063000100444407 SBI Joint A/c no. No Not a single 10211443836 (revealed from his compliance statement filed affidavit dated 23.07.2019)
4. The petitioner has also pointed out the incomes reflected by the respondent in his own ITR for Assessment Year 2012-2013 upto Assessment Year 2017-2018, which also reflect the capital invested by the respondent with his firm (M/s Equal Minerals) and the particulars therefore as follows:
ITR Gross Profit Total income Capital with Firm (p.a.) (p.a.) AY 2012-13 21,37,273 7,90,789 42,18,674 AY 2013-14 16,49,789 8,54,211 43,99,247 AY 2014-15 13,35,444 9,86,539 48,91,038 AY 2015-16 14,26,106 11,59,548 59,23,317 AY 2016-17 16,16,538 10,12,947 63,81,379 AY 2017-18 15,79,540 10,35,994 70,81,702
5. The petitioner points out that the respondent purportedly advanced huge amounts of loan for his parents which are also reflected in his ITRs, and the particulars thereof are as follows:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 3 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14 ITRs Loan given by Loan given by
Respondent to his Respondent to
father (Ashok Narang) his mother (Alka
Narang)
AY 2014-15 63,60,000 11,15,000
AY 2015-16 1,26,82,894 60,10,000
AY 2016-17 1,34,83,733 49,84,000
AY 2017-18 60,60,112 47,24,000
6. The submission of the petitioner is that in the business of the respondent which is to supply mineral water to several establishments under his own brand name, there is a lot of cash generation. The petitioner has tabulated some of the cash deposits reflected in the respondent's bank accounts on the basis of the statements provided by the respondent himself.
She points out that after the dispute arose between the parties and the divorce petition was preferred in May 2018, the cash deposits dropped drastically. The details of the cash deposits are as follows:
Period Cash deposited by Respondent
April, 15 to Aug, 15 29,85,000
(5 months)
April, 16 to Aug, 16 19,74,000
(5 months)
April, 18 to May. 18 8,92,000
(2 months)
19.8.2020 1,50,000
24.8.2020 1,00,000
8.12.2020 2,00,000
29.12.2020 2,00,000
21.1.2021 50,000
30.1.2021 50,000
16.2.2021 50,000
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 4 of 8
ARORA
Signing Date:15.09.2021
18:49:14
25.2.2021 50,000
1.3.2021 50,000
8.3.2021 50,000
17.3.2021 50,000
23.3.2021 50,000
7. The petitioner has also pointed out that the respondent is a Director in M/s. Euro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and he has been receiving Director's remuneration which is also reflected in his ITRs for AY 2012-2013 to AY 2016-2017 particulars whereof are as follows:
ITR Director's
Remuneration /
Commission Received
AY 2012-13 2,40,000
AY 2013-14 3,00,000
AY 2014-15 3,00,000
AY 2015-16 3,90,000
AY 2016-17 2,13,200
8. The petitioner points out that the respondent is the sole proprietor of M/s. Equal Minerals and is a Director in M/s. Euro Polymers Pvt. Ltd. which is a family-owned concern. He and his mother are the only two Directors in the said company. He is also a Director in M/s Equal Plastics Pvt. Ltd. which is admittedly the company of the Petitioner's father. Various trademarks are held by M/s Equal Minerals and M/s Euro Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
9. The petitioner has also pointed out that the respondent is leading a lavish lifestyle. The family owns a four-storey bungalow at C-63, Inderpuri, New Delhi of which three floors are owned by the respondent's family, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 5 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14 valued at over Rs. 15 crores. He also has a rented accommodation at House No. 1816, (ANNEX), First Floor, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. He also owns Plot No. 212, Phase 2, Industrial Area, Panchkula, Haryana. The petitioner claims that the respondent has beneficial interest in the family property at 3780-82, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The respondent is driving two cars namely a Corolla Altis and a Ford Ecosport. He also owns two motorbikes i.e. Royal Enfield. The petitioner points out that the respondent has disclosed in his ITR for the AY 2017-18 that he has sold gold weighing 474.10 grams valued at Rs. 8,72,748/- and 143.95 Crt. of diamond valued at Rs. 15,94,000/-. The petitioner submits that it is her jewelry, which was kept by the respondent when the petitioner was turned away from her matrimonial home and this jewelry was evidently sold by the respondent. The petitioner has also pointed out that when the parties were together, they were leading luxurious lifestyle. They travelled abroad to celebrate new year's and took holidays to different parts of the world such as Canada, Malaysia, Singapore.
10. Coming back to the bank statements filed by the respondent along with his reply, it is seen from these statements of account that even if one were to ignore other bank accounts that the respondent may be holding and operating, particulars of some of which disclosed by the petitioner on the basis of the information gathered by her from respondent's ITRs, the respondent was continuously maintaining a healthy balance in the aforesaid bank account i.e. the State Bank of India which continuously is in the range of Rs. 2 lakhs and more. Despite having sufficient liquidity, the respondent did not comply with the orders passed by the Family Court on 20.12.2020 as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 6 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14 well as our order dated 11.02.2021. On our query the respondent who is present in person states that he preferred to maintain the balance and not pay the amount payable to the petitioner on account of his business. Ms. Raju submits that since notice had been issued in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2021 wherein the respondent had challenged the order granting maintenance to the petitioner herein, the amount was not paid. At the same time, she does not deny the fact that we had ourselves directed while passing order dated 11.02.2021 in the respondent's MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2021 that he shall continue to comply with the order passed by the Family Court during the pendency of the appeal. It is therefore clear to us that the respondent is in deliberate, intentional and conscious breach of inter alia our order dated 11.02.2021 passed in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 20/2021 which, the respondent has also withdrawn. Therefore, the order passed by the Family Court on 20.12.2020, in so far as the respondent is concerned has now attained finality. We, therefore, find the respondent guilty of contempt and issue notice to him to show cause as to why he should not be punished. The respondent is directed to file an affidavit making full and complete disclosure of all his bank accounts including those highlighted by the petitioner as not having been disclosed. He shall also provide complete list of the loans which he granted to his parents and which are reflected in his own ITRs. The statement of all the bank accounts shall be filed from 01.04.2017 onwards. He shall also place on record the statement of accounts, of the account held in State Bank of India in the name of his firm M/s. Equal Minerals, for the months for which they have not been placed on record, and up to date till 31.08.2021. The affidavit along with the documents shall be filed by the respondent within two weeks. It is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 7 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14 made clear that no further time shall be granted. On the next date the respondent is bound down to be personally present before the Court.
11. List on 30.09.2021.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 sr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT CONT.CAS(C) 429/2021 Page 8 of 8 ARORA Signing Date:15.09.2021 18:49:14