Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs Sonia on 12 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONIKA SAROHA
SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/ASJ (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. 66/2021
Sunil Kumar, Aged 42 years,
S/o Sh. Rukam Pal Singh,
R/o A-333, A-4, Street No. 35,
Chhatarpur Enclave, Phase-2,
New Delhi-110074.
Mob.: 9811165430,
E-mail : [email protected]
.....Appellant
Versus
Sonia
D/o Sh. Sudesh Kumar,
R/o H. No. 89, Khasra No. 627,
Chhaterpur Enclave, Phase-1,
Maidan Garhi Road,
Delhi-110074,
Mob. 9811665487
E-mail : [email protected]
.....Respondent
Police Station :- Mehrauli
Unique ID No. : DLST01-004797-2021
Date of institution : 16.06.2021
Date of Arguments : 12.01.2022
Date of decision : 12.01.2022
Decision : Dismissed
Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 1/9
JUDGEMENT
Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the appeal u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) filed by the appellant against order dated 21.11.2020 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) in CC No. 12754/17, titled Sonia Vs. Sunil Kumar. This order shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Impugned Order". Vide this order the Ld. Trial Court awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the aggrieved person before it, who is the respondent herein.
1. The material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as are revealed from the Impugned Order are discussed in brief below. The appellant and the respondent admittedly got married on 30.06.2001 according to Hindu Rites and Customs with the consent of both the families. Out of this wedlock, one female child was born in 2003. The respondent wife invoked the jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court by filing a complaint u/s 12 PWDV Act alleging that she was treated with physical, emotional, mental and economic abuse by her husband and his relatives. A report was sought from the Protection Officer upon this complaint. The Domestic Incident Report was filed by the Protection Officer in due course. Reply to the complaint was filed by the husband before the trial court. Both the parties filed their income affidavits also before the trial court. On the basis of the averments made in the pleadings and documents before it, the Ld Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 2/9 Trial Court formed a prima facie view that indeed the complainant wife is entitled to interim maintenance from her husband during the pendency of the proceedings under the PWDV Act. The trial court thus awarded an interim monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant wife to be paid from the date the wife was unemployed till the pendency of the complaint before it. For arriving at this amount the Ld. Trial Court presumed the income of the husband to be Rs. 50,000/- per month and also took into account the maintenance already being paid to the minor child by the husband.
2. The appellant husband has approached this court aggrieved of the impugned order for the following reasons:-
a. That the Trial Court wrongly assumed the income of appellant to be Rs. 50,000/- per month, whereas his actual income is only Rs. 35,000/- per month.
b. That the Trial Court did not consider the fact that the respondent is an educated lady earning Rs. 50,000/- per month.
c. That the Trial Court did not take into account the fact that the respondent is the owner of a flat in Noida and has several investments in Mutual Funds and FDR.
d. That the Trial Court did not consider the fact that the appellant is suffering from chronic renal disease and other ailments.
Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 3/9 e. That the Trial Court ignored the fact that there was no domestic relation between the appellant and the respondent as the respondent wife had left the matrimonial house way back in 2009.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued on similar lines.
3. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the respondent argued that the impugned order is a well reasoned one, which does not warrant any interference. According to Ld counsel for the respondent, indeed the respondent is entitled to the amount awarded to her in the impugned order since the respondent is unemployed since after February 2019 and has not been able to find a suitable job. Ld. Counsel informed the court that the employer company shifted from its original location making it very difficult for the respondent wife to commute such a long distance, which also meant longer hours away from her school going child and much more travel expenses making it infeasible and impracticable for the respondent to continue the job especially since the daughter was in the final years of her schooling pursuing her crucial studies in class X/XI. Later due to the pandemic situation there was no job in the market suitable to her experience and qualification and therefore the respondent remains jobless. During the course of the arguments, Ld Counsel for the respondent even stated at Bar, upon instructions of his client, that indeed the respondent was unemployed since Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 4/9 February 2019.
4. After having heard arguments as advanced by both the sides and having perused the entire material before it, this Court finds no reason to allow this appeal. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and indeed is an appropriate order in the face of the facts and applicable law.
5. The couple is admittedly litigating with each other since last many years now. Thus the parties were at loggerheads since almost 10 years before the Impugned Order was passed. In all these years the respondent wife was never awarded any interim maintenance by any forum. On account of the fact that the respondent wife was gainfully employed and earning sufficient salary to maintain herself, even the concerned Family Court had only awarded maintenance to the minor child in custody of the respondent. The respondent had nowhere challenged the non grant of maintenance to her.
6. Now when for the first time after so many years of residing separately from the husband, when the respondent wife has stated on record before the trial court that she is unemployed and is finding it difficult to make both ends meet, much like the trial court this court also sees no ground to disbelieve the same. In the detailed income affidavit dated 09.11.2017 as filed by the respondent wife (referred to as Annexure A10 in the appeal) she has herself admitted her income to be around Rs. 50,000/- per month. Thus, there has Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 5/9 been no attempt on part of the wife to hide her monthly income for the period when she was indeed drawing a decent salary. However, in the income affidavit dated 25.09.2019 (placed at page no. 118 of this appeal) the wife has clearly stated that she is unemployed since February, 2019 and has sought maintenance only for the period after February, 2019.
7. During the interim stage, when the Court is only to form a prima facie view the Trial Court was justified in believing the said income affidavit on its face value as far as the factum of unemployment of the aggrieved person before it was concerned. The trial court is not expected to do a detailed threadbare analysis at the interim stage. There is no merit in the argument of the appellant that the respondent wife has not duly established the factum of her resignation before the trial court. The trial court was justified in relying upon the resignation letter as filed before it to form a prima facie view. There is nothing per se suspicious about this resignation letter and its acceptance by the employer. It is common practice in many corporates to accept and proceed ahead with such resignations even through email (the resignation related documents are at page no. 179-181 of the appeal). It also does not appear probable that the respondent will willingly and deliberately quit a job where she was earning a handsome amount and where she was working since last many years (since 2007) only to seek maintenance from her Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 6/9 husband suddenly. It must be kept in mind that for more than 10 years the wife is residing separately and was continuously working while at the same time taking care of her minor daughter which would not have been an easy task considering the tender age of the daughter when the parties started living separately. Now when the daughter was in the final years of her schooling days and had to some extent become capable of taking care of herself even in the absence of her mother, the respondent would not quit her job where she must have risen through the ranks over the last many years only to seek a paltry maintenance from her estranged husband.
8. Even otherwise, if the Appellant wanted the Trial Court to believe that the respondent had not yet resigned and continued to work with the same employer or anywhere else, the onus was upon him to provide the particulars of his wife's employer and the salary drawn by her since after March 2019. The Appellant did not place on record any document to show that the respondent was gainfully employed after March, 2019. Even before this Court, the argument of the appellant is only that the resignation is not proper and the respondent may be working elsewhere now but this submission is not supported by any document or any details whatsoever.
9. Also there is no merit in the argument that since the respondent has booked a flat in Noida and made certain savings/investments while she was employed she is not entitled to Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 7/9 interim maintenance. A wife cannot be denied the regular monthly maintenance on the ground that she has certain investments, which she made while she was employed. Similarly, even assuming that the respondent purchased a flat in better times, unless the appellant can show that such a flat is fetching regular rental income for the respondent, the mere existence of this flat can be no ground for denying maintenance to the wife.
10. Coming now to the correctness of the presumption of the income of the appellant as made by the Trial Court. The Trial Court assumed the income of the appellant to be Rs. 50,000/- on the basis of the material before it. Now, in his income affidavit the appellant admits his income to be Rs. 34,080/- per month and his monthly expenditure to be Rs. 35,000/- per month. However, from the bank account statements of the appellant the trial court rightly noted regular deposits of around Rs. 2 Lakh per year. Even before this court the appellant has not disputed that a regular amount is deposited in his bank accounts over and above his salary. It is also not denied by the appellant that he is working as a Managing Director in a Private Ltd Company owned by none else than his real maternal uncle only. In these facts, it cannot be said that the Trial Court committed any error in presuming the income of the appellant to be around Rs. 50,000/- per month.
11. Thus out of the earning of Rs 50,000/- per month, if interim Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 8/9 maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded to the wife the same cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch. Infact this amount was arrived at by the trial court after considering the maintenance already being paid to the child by the appellant.
12. Thus, for reasons discussed in detail above, this court finds no reason to set aside the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. Copy of the judgement be sent to the Trial Court with the Trial Court Record.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court on 12.01.2022 (Monika Saroha) Special Judge-NDPS/ASJ (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 66./21 Sunil Kumar vs. Sonia 9/9