Delhi District Court
Ritesh Grover vs Dipika Malhotra on 9 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-010552-2022
Crl. Appeal No. 290-2022
PS- Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 29 D.V. Act
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ritesh Grover
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Grover,
R/o 13/37, 1st Floor, Front Side,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi - 110 027.
.............APPELLANT
VERSUS
Deepika Malhotra
S/o Sh. C. L. Malhotra,
W/o Sh. Ritesh Grover
R/o 35/43, First Floor,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi- 110 026.
............RESPONDENT
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 03.11.2022
Date of Reserving Order :21.09.2024
Date of Order : 09.10.2024
AND
CNR No. DLWT01-003747-2023
Crl. Appeal No. 155-2023
PS- Punjabi Bagh
U/s. 29 D.V. Act
IN THE MATTER OF:
Deepika Malhotra
S/o Sh. C. L. Malhotra,
W/o Sh. Ritesh Grover
R/o 35/43, First Floor,
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi- 110 026.
.............APPELLANT
CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover
CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra
PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 1/26
VERSUS
Ritesh Grover
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Grover,
R/o 13/37, 1st Floor, Front Side,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi - 110 027.
............RESPONDENT
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 02.05.2023
Date of Reserving Order : 21.09.2024
Date of Order : 09.10.2024
CRIMINAL APPEALS U/s. 29 OF THE PROTECTION OF
WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005, FOR
SETTING A SIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2022
PASSED BY THE COURT OF LD. MM (MAHILA COURT)
-01, WEST, THC, DELHI IN MC NO. 79/2019 TITLED AS
DEEPIKA MALHOTRA VS. RITESH GROVER
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose off two cross
appeals filed by husband Ritesh Grover and wife Deepika
Malhotra being aggrieved by impugned order dated 06.09.2022
passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Court-01, West whereby Ld. Trial
Court had disposed off the interim maintenance application filed
by wife Deepika Malhotra in MC No. 79/2019 in her favour
granting maintenance to her. While the husband Ritesh Grover is
aggrieved by awarding of maintenance in favour of wife Deepika
Malhotra, the wife is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance
awarded in her favour as well as the date w.e.f which the
maintenance has been awarded. Accordingly, both the parties
have challenged the impugned order by way of two separate
appeals detailed above.
2. As is evident, wife Deepika Malhotra is the
CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover
CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra
PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 2/26
complainant/petitioner before Ld. Trial Court having filed a
petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the D.V. Act)
against her husband Ritesh Grover (respondent before Ld. Trial
Court). For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred
to by their nomenclature before Ld. Trial Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that the complainant Deepika Malhotra had filed a petition under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act against her husband Ritesh Grover on 11.02.2019. In addition, seven other respondents being her mother in law, Devar, Devrani, Bua Saas, Fufa Saas and sons of Fufa Saas were also impleaded as respondent in DV Act petition. Vide order dated 11.02.2019, Ld. Trial Court directed summoning of respondent husband Ritesh Grover and deferred the summoning of other respondents till filing of DIR. After filing of DIR, vide order dated 01.04.2019, respondent no. 2 to 4 that are mother-in-law and Devars of the complainant were also directed to be summoned by Ld. Trial Court while summoning of other respondents was declined. All the summoned respondents filed their replies to the petition.
4. Reply and income affidavit along with certain documents were filed on behalf of the respondent husband on 02.09.2019. Other summoned respondents filed their reply on 07.08.2019 along with certain documents. Income affidavit was also filed on behalf of complainant on 02.09.2019. However, interim application could not be disposed off due to the Pandemic and both complainant wife and respondent husband were directed to file their fresh income affidavit in terms of observations made in CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 3/26 the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha vide order dated 05.02.2021. Fresh income affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant on 16.10.2021.
5. After hearing the arguments on the interim application at length and seeking clarifications regarding the documents filed on record by the parties, the interim application was disposed off by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.09.2022.
IMPUGNED ORDER:
6. Vide impugned order dated 06.09.2022, Ld. Trial Court presumed the income of respondent husband to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and that of complainant to be Rs. 60,000/- per moth (prior to her resignation). Ld. Trial Court had observed that as per the material on record, the complainant was assaulted at home because of which she was suffering from severe pain in back, neck and knees and had to undergo physio therapy because of which she tendered her resignation on medical grounds which was accepted and she was relieved from regular service from school w.e.f. 31.07.2022. Considering all these facts, the capability and educational qualification and corresponding needs and liabilities of both the parties, Ld. Trial Court awarded interim maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/- per month in favour of the complainant w.e.f 31.07.2022 (i.e. the date of her resignation) till re-marriage/entitlement to be paid by respondent husband on 10 th of each calender month. In addition, future medical expenses to be incurred by complainant were also awarded in her favour and against the respondent husband. Ld. Trial Court also observed that since the complainant was residing at her matrimonial home, CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 4/26 no order was being passed rental or alternative accommodation. The respondent husband was directed to clear the arrears within six months.
7. It is this order on interim maintenance which is under challenge in the present appeals filed by both complainant wife and respondent husband U/s 29 DV Act.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT HUSBAND AND HIS ARGUMENTS ON HIS OWN APPEAL AS WELL AS OPPOSING THE CROSS APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT WIFE:
8. Respondent husband has challenged impugned order in CA No. 290/2022 on various grounds. It is alleged that the impugned order has resulted in grave miscarriage and failure of justice to him. The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds:-
I) That by way of impugned order, Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dispose off the interim application filed by the complainant wife under Section 23(2) of DV Act for grant of interim maintenance.
However, it is a matter of record that no such separate application was filed by the complainant and the relief qua maintenance is only sought by her in terms of prayer clause (d) of the petition under Section 12 of DV Act seeking interim maintenance Rs. 3,00,000/- from respondent husband. Ld. Trial Court observed in the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 that complainant was seeking interim maintenance @ Rs. 65,000/- per month which was never claimed by the complainant in her original petition CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 5/26 under Section 12 DV Act nor any application under Section 23 (2) DV Act was filed by her. This amount of Rs. 65,000/- per month finds mentions only in the first income affidavit filed by the complainant wife as per Kusum Sharma's judgment on 02.09.2019. However, subsequently, the complainant had filed second income affidavit as per Rajnesh's Judgment raising a claim of interim maintenance @ Rs. 95,000/- Per month. Thus, Ld. Trial Court had proceeded on a completely non-existent assumption while passing the impugned order that there was an application under Section 23(2) of DV Act filed by the complainant and that in the said application, she had made a prayer of interim maintenance @ Rs. 65,000/- per month.
ii) Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the material facts and wrongly came to a conclusion that complainant wife was an aggrieved person while on the other hand, it was the respondent husband who was actually aggrieved by unreasonable behavior of his wife and had to shift to a rented accommodation.
iii) Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate that complainant wife had refused to reside in the rented accommodation with her husband without any reasonable ground and was thus, not entitled to claim any maintenance from her husband.
iv) Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate that complainant wife is a well qualified independent lady who was employed as an English Teacher with Delhi Public School, R. K. Puram, New Delhi and was earning a handsome salary of about Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. However, on the pretext of the self created incident which allegedly took place on 18.11.2021, the complainant wife tendered her resignation by concocting a frivolous story with a view to fetch maximum amount of maintenance from respondent CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 6/26 husband.
(v) Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed on record in a right perspective thereby committing a grave error. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of a mere casual guess work by Ld. Trial Court.
(vi) That the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error by assessing the income of the husband on the basis of the turn over as mentioned in the balance sheet pertaining to the year 2017- 2018 in place of his net profits which was his actual income.
(vii) That the Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error by ignoring the income tax returns filed by the husband and observing that there were heavy transactions in the bank account of the husband which speak volumes about his flourishing business. His bank account statements in respect of saving bank accounts maintained by respondent husband with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Canara Bank and Punjab National Bank have been totally ignored. Ld. Trial Court has only considered the flow of money in the current account of his sole proprietorship firm which do not reflect his actual income.
(viii) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the material facts that respondent husband had invested in chit funds which was withdrawn and converted into fixed deposits and FD was also created from the funds of the business and the interest thereon was being used for the purposes of furthering his business.
(ix) That the Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the actual financial position of respondent husband in the right perspective and have wrongly relied upon the matrimonial advertising given CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 7/26 by him showing his annual income of Rs. 10 lacs -15 lacs.
(x) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to direct complainant wife to produce her latest Salary Slip as well as Form 16 for the assessment year 2022-2023 despite request made by respondent husband.
(xi) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant wife had taken a contradictory stand. On the one hand, she is alleging that her parents are dependent upon her and she is spending Rs. 50,000/- per month on them, while on the other hand, in her petition under Section 12 DV Act, she has alleged that her basic needs are being fulfilled by her father only. Ld. Trial Court did not draw any adverse inference against the complainant wife on such contradictory submissions and rather proceeded to take extremely harsh view against the respondent husband.
(xii) That the Ld. Trial Court has passed vague directions regarding payment of medical expenses to the complainant wife giving a free hand to her to manipulate her medical bills to take advantage of the respondent husband.
(xiii) That the Ld. Trial Court has awarded maintenance on a very high side to the complainant wife by impugned order which is highly unjust, arbitrary, irrational, illegal, unreasonable, uncalled for and contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
9. Ld. counsel for the respondent husband has argued in line with the grounds of his appeal and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by respondent wife and the same has been filed as a counter attack to the appeal of the respondent husband. It is CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 8/26 submitted that Ld. Trial Court has passed a reasoned order in respect of the day from which maintenance has been awarded to the complainant wife and cogent reasons for the same are duly mentioned in impugned order. Hence, dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent wife has been sought.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT WIFE AND HER ARGUMENTS ON HER OWN APPEAL AS WELL AS OPPOSING THE CROSS APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT HUSBAND:
10. The complainant wife has filed cross appeal bearing CA No. 155-2023 challenging the impugned order on the following grounds:-
i) That the impugned order is against the settled principles of law, evidence and probabilities.
ii) That the Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that facts and material on record in the true perspective while passing the impugned order.
iii) That the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the fact that respondent husband has himself mentioned in his affidavit that he is doing business of purchase of orthopedics and rehabilitation products under the name and style of M/s. Pharmatech Distributors as proprietor since 1996 and has manufactured around 2000 products including patent products which are not available in India except with respondent husband as admitted by him on the official website as well as balance sheet filed by him.
iv) That the Ld. Trial Court ignored the fact that respondent husband has been making contradictory statement regarding the CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 9/26 time since when he has been proprietor of M/s. Pharmatech Distributors in order to portray himself as a man with limited means.
v) That the Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent husband deliberately concealed his rental incomes from the court and had himself uploaded on Shaadi.com that he is earning Rs. 10-15 lacs annually from business.
vi) That the Ld. Trial Court has miserably failed to ascertain the true income of the respondent husband before passing the impugned order.
vii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had willingly relinquished his share in four immovable property in Delhi in favour of his mother simply to deprive the complainant wife of her legal rights and has very conveniently concealed the said fact from the court and not mentioned it in his income affidavit.
viii) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent husband did not disclose the particulars of the FDRs in his name while furnishing his income affidavit with a malafide intention. He merely disclosed his FDR of Rs. 10 lacs upon submissions of complainant wife but very conveniently concealed the details of such other investments.
ix) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in order to avoid his responsibility towards complainant wife, the respondent husband had very conveniently stated that he has been ousted from his house and his mother has severed all ties with him whereas his bank account statement clearly reflects continuous transfer of money by him to his mother from 2016 till 2019.
CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 10/26
x) That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the submissions made by the complainant wife regarding the lifestyle of respondent husband.
xi) That the Ld. Trial Court has committed a grave error in assessing the income of the respondent husband to be merely Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Ld. Trial court has also ignored the fact that the respondent husband has himself alleged that his monthly expenses are merely Rs. 35,000/- and accordingly,maintenance at a much higher rate than what has been awarded should have been awarded in favor of the complainant wife.
xi) That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the documents filed on record by the respondent husband clearly show that he was having a huge turn over of Rs. 58 lacs in the year 2017-2018 which clearly reflects his financial status.
xii) That Ld. Trial Court has committed a grave error in law by not awarding maintenance to complainant wife prior to 31.07.2022 i.e. the date of her resignation. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the decisions of various High Court to the effect that even an earning wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband so as to enjoy the same status as her husband.
xiii) That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in not awarding the maintenance to the complainant wife from the date of filing of the application.
xiii) That the Ld. Trial Court has also erred in awarding the medical expenses to the complainant wife from the date of acceptance of her resignation rather than from the date of incident.
11. Ld. counsel for the complainant wife has argued in line with the grounds of appeal and has prayed for setting aside the CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 11/26 impugned order to the tune of granting maintenance and medical expenses w.e.f. 31.07.2022. Enhancement of maintenance amount has also been prayed. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by respondent husband. It is submitted that although, it is correct that there is no separate application under Section 23(2) of DV Act filed by the complainant wife, however, the prayer for grant of interim maintenance has been made in the petition under Section 12 DV Act. There is no provision that an order for grant of interim maintenance cannot be passed except on an application under Section 23(2) DV Act. This technical ground has been raised by respondent husband merely to harass the complainant wife and to avoid making payment of interim maintenance to her. Ld. Trial Court has duly appreciated the fact that although the complainant wife was earlier working as a school teacher but she has been forced to leave her job due to her medical condition which is the outcome of practice of domestic violence upon her. In these circumstances, dismissal of the appeal filed by the respondent husband has been sought and it is prayed that the appeal filed by complainant wife be allowed and maintenance at a higher rate along with medical expenses be awarded in her favor from the date of filing of application.
FINDINGS:
12. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the record. It is an admitted case of the parties that they were married on 25.07.2015. No child has been born from the wedlock between the parties. As per the allegations made in the DV Act petition, the complainant was harassed and taunted for bringing less dowry immediately after her marriage. The respondent CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 12/26 husband was a habitual drunkard and used to verbally and physically abuse the complainant in drunken condition. He is a very aggressive, angry and dominating person who wanted to control the complainant in every respect. The respondents also abused her by saying the she was mentally dull and physco and does not understand anything and was not capable of doing any work. She was also taunted and harassed for her personal appearance as she gained weight after marriage. Lavish gifts were demanded on every festival from the parents of the complainant and respondent used to ask money from her on numerous occasions and she was forced to give entire salary to the respondents. A demand of Rs. 2.5 lacs was raised from her for construction of third floor and she was asked to demand the said amount from her parents. Father of the complainant died intestate on 17.08.2016. Thereafter, respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 colluded and respondent no. 1 husband and respondent no. 3 executed a joint relinquishment deed in favour of respondent no. 2 thereby relinquishing their rights in the shared household of the complainant. In order to oust the complainant from her shared household, her mother in law/respondent no. 2 disowned respondent husband by newspaper publication vide order dated 28.09.2017. Even a civil suit bearing no. 1675/2017 titled as Neera Grover Vs. Jitesh Grover was filed by her mother-in-law seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, respondent husband appeared before the court and made a statement before Ld. Civil Judge on his behalf as well as on behalf of complainant that they would vacate the shared household by 31.03.2018 and obtained a decree in this regard dated 17.02.2018. On an application filed by the complainant, the CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 13/26 said decree was set aside and the suit was restored. It is also alleged in the complaint that after making the statement before Ld. Civil Judge, respondent husband left the shared household without informing the complainant and deserted her. She continued to reside in the matrimonial home but was continuously abused and harrassed by the respondents. Various incidents of harassments have been narrated in the complaint. The complainant had also made a complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh on 01.04.2018 against the respondents. On her complaint, FIR No. 586/2018 U/s 380/454 IPC was also registered at PS- Punjabi Bagh against the respondents. Respondent no. 2 also filed a civil suit for possession bearing Civ DJ No. 663/2018 for recovery of possession of share household from her which is pending disposal.
13. At this stage of consideration of application for grant of interim maintenance only a prima facie case has to be seen to come to a conclusion whether the complainant is an aggrieved person within the provisions as contained in DV Act. In the present case, considering the complaint and the beneficial nature of the legislation, the complainant prima facie appears to be an aggrieved person and is thus, held entitled to receive interim maintenance from the respondent husband. Accordingly, no infirmity is observed in the impugned order regarding the entitlement of the complainant to receive interim maintenance from the respondent. The case of the respondent that it was in fact he who was harassed by the complainant can be appreciated only after evidence is led by both the parties and it would be inappropriate to comment upon the same at this stage.
14. The first objection of respondent husband to the impugned CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 14/26 order is that the impugned order mentions disposal of interim application filed by the petitioner/applicant/complainant wife under Section 23(2) of DV Act for grant of interim maintenance for herself, however, no such application has been filed by the complainant before Ld. Trial Court. It is submitted that since no such application was in existence, it could not have been decided by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is perverse and infirm as it mentions disposal of a non-existent application. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that merely because an application for interim maintenance under Section 23(2) DV Act is not filed, there is no legal bar to grant interim maintenance in favour of the complainant. Merely because there is typographical error in the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 to the effect that it mentions disposal of application under Section 23(2) of DV Act in place of just mentioning grant of interim maintenance in favour of the complainant, it is not sufficient to set aside the complete impugned order which has been passed on the basis of arguments of both the parties.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties on this aspect. Section 12 DV Act provides for filing of an application by Magistrate by an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person filing a petition under Section 12 DV Act can seek protection order under Section 18, Residence order under Section 19; Monetary reliefs under Section 20; Custody order under Section 21 and Compensation Order under Section 22 of DV Act. In the present case, the complainant has sought Residence order under Section 19, Monetory relief under Section 20, Compensation order under Section 22 as well as interim relief under Section 23 of DV Act CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 15/26 in her petition under Section 12 DV Act. Section 23 DV Act deals with the power to grant interim and ex-parte orders. Section 23(1) DV Act provides that in any proceedings before him under the Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim orders as he deems just and proper. Section 23(2) DV Act on the other hand provides for the relief of ex-parte order which can be granted if the Magistrate is satisfied on an application filed by the complainant duly supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form III attached with the Act. Rule 7 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 specifically provides that every affidavit for obtaining ex-parte order under Section 23(2) DV Act shall be filed in form III. However, there is neither any provision nor any rule which provides filing of a separate application for obtaining interim relief as provided under Section 23(1) DV Act. Accordingly, though no ex-parte ad interim orders can be passed without proper application along with affidavit under Section 23(2) r/w Form III of DV Act, however, there is no specific provisions in the entire scheme of DV Act which provides that any interim relief cannot be passed in favour of the complainant except on a separate application supported by an affidavit.
16. Admittedly, in the present case, the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 has not been passed ex-parte rather the same has been passed after issuing the notice to the respondent husband, considering the response and documents filed by him and hearing the arguments on his behalf. Accordingly, impugned order dated 06.09.2022 is not an ex-parte interim maintenance order under Section 23(2) DV Act which required filing of a separate application with affidavit. Rather, it is an order under Section 23(1) DV Act for which no separate application or affidavit is CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 16/26 required.
17. It is also correct that the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 mentions that it shall dispose of the interim application filed by the complainant under Section 23(2) DV Act for grant of interim maintenance for herself. However, it is also correct that the impugned order has been passed after considering the pleadings of both the parties, documents filed by them and hearing arguments from both the sides. Thus, technically it is an order under Section 23(1) DV Act which did not require any separate application. Since, the impugned order date 06.09.2022 is a detailed order considering the pleadings, documents and arguments of both the sides, I do not deem it appropriate to set it aside merely on a technical ground that it mentions disposal of application under Section 23(2) DV Act which is not the case. This is more so, as even if the first paragraph of the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 is removed from the order and replaced by "consideration of grant of interim maintenance as prayed by the complainant" it will make no difference to the reasoning given by Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, I find no merit in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is perverse or infirm on account of mentioning that it shall dispose off an interim application filed by the complainant under Section 23(2) DV Act. No ground is made out for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2022 on this sole technical ground.
18. Coming to merits of the case regarding the quantum of maintenance and the date from which the maintenance should be awarded to the complainant, various factors that have to be taken into consideration while deciding an application of interim CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 17/26 maintenance includes status of the parties, reasonable wants of the complainant, independent income and property of the claimant, number of persons the non-applicant has to maintain, amount required to aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as she was enjoying in her matrimonial home, liabilities of the non-applicant and paying capacity of the non-applicant.
19. Some guess work cannot be ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources of income are not being disclosed. It has also been observed time and again by various Superior courts that parties do not truthfully disclose their income in the Income Tax Returns and the non-applicants try to conceal their correct income from the court when they are obliged to pay maintenance to the applicant. Many a times, it has come to the notice of the courts that a multimillionaire earning handsome income at the time of marriage suddenly becomes unemployed once maintenance cases are filed against him by his estranged wife. At the same time, the family members have flourishing businesses and many properties and enjoying the same status which even the non- applicant/husband was admittedly enjoying at the time of the marriage. The present case is also a classic example of such concealments made at the hands of husband/Respondent no.1.
20. Now, let us examine the income of the Respondent Husband in view of the above observations. As per the first income affidavit filed by the respondent husband in the year 2019, he has alleged that he had been doing the sale and purchase of Orthopaedics and rehabilitation products along with his father. After death of his father since August, 2016, he has been taking care of the said business. However, he was ousted from the CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 18/26 family in the year 2017 and has no family members as such. He has further stated his income for the financial year 2016-2017 to be Rs. 23,7275/- while that for the year 2017-18 to be Rs. 500595/- i.e. about Rs. 41,716/- per month. He had also pleaded that till the time his father was alive, he was receiving some meagre amount of money from his father for expenses and after the demise of his father, he had started earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. He had also stated that he had no income from any other sources and he has only an FDR for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from which he is having interest income of 7.3% compounded annually. He has declared maintaining savings bank account with Punjab National Bank and another account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. It is also stated in the affidavit that he has capital investment in the sole proprietorship firm to the tune of Rs. 23,56,513/-. He has also stated his expenses to include income tax to the tune of Rs. 7310/- for the assessment year 2018-19, property tax for the office space to the tune of Rs. 4600/-, rent to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-, EMIs of scooter loan amounting to Rs. 2468/-, premium of LIC policies to the tune of Rs. 89,122/- and towards mediclaim to the tune of Rs. 17,913/-. He has further alleged that his monthly salary bills towards his workers are to the tune of Rs. 50-60,000/-. He has placed on record his ITR for the AY- 2018-19 showing his gross total income to be Rs. 5,00,595/-. Profit and loss account of his sole proprietorship firm M/s Pharmatech Distributors for the year ending on 31.03.2018 is also placed on record. Ld. Trial Court has duly appreciated the fact that his profit and loss account shows liability in the form of loan given to his mother Ms. Neera Grover to the tune of Rs. 709334/- which falsifies his claim that he has no relationship CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 19/26 with his family members since demise of his father. It is also duly appreciated by Ld. Trial Court that as per the documents filed on record by the Respondent husband with his additional income affidavit, his annual turnover for financial year 2017-18 was Rs. 58 Lacs while his gross profit was about Rs. 10.5 Lacs as compared to the year 2016-17 where his annual turnover was Rs. 21.52 Lacs while the gross profit was about Rs. 5 Lacs. This clearly shows that his income from his business has been increasing every year. Ld. Trial Court also duly appreciated that his bank account statements show various heavy transactions which speak volumes about his flourishing business. It is the own case of the respondent husband that his business is being run by a sole proprietorship firm thus, he is the only person who is entitled to the income from the said business. Ld. Trial Court has also duly relied upon the decision in Rupali Grover Vs Rajesh Grover cited as 11(2005) DMC 531 wherein it has been categorically stated that income tax returns do not depict the true income of the parties especially in case of earnings from business. Relying on various submissions made by the parties, their status, standard of living as well as documents filed on record, Ld. Trial Court has rightly presumed the income of respondent husband to be not less than Rs. 1.5 Lacs per month. I find no infirmity or illegality in the said finding and accordingly, there is no ground for interfering with the same.
21. As regards the income of the complainant, in the present case, admittedly, the complainant was working as a Teacher at Delhi Public School at the time of filing of present petition under Section 12 DV Act. Although, in her petition under Section 12 DV Act, she has not disclosed her monthly income, however, as CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 20/26 per her first affidavit of income dated 02.09.2019, she has admitted her monthly income of as Rs. 60,900/- (after deduction). Her gross income is alleged to be Rs. 72,712/- per month and her date of employment is 02.07.2016. She has also alleged her total expenditure to be Rs. 1,70,000/- including Rs. 50,000/- as repair and maintenance expenditure in the house of dependent parents; Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance of her parents. Rs. 30,000/- towards groceries, personal care etc. Rs. 11,000/- towards electricity, Rs. 12,000/- per month towards fuel etc. and Rs. 27,000/- towards insurance. She has given details of her four bank account having meager balances. Various documents were filed along with her affidavit including Form 16 showing her gross salary for the financial year 2017-2018 of Rs. 4,96,167/-. Her ITR for the year 2016-2017 showing her gross total income as Rs. 5,79,388/-. She also filed on record her pay slip for the month of July 2019 showing her net salary after deduction of mandatory allowances as Rs. 60,900/-. Thereafter, she filed her second affidavit of income dated 13.07.2021 showing her monthly income of Rs. 50,478/- after deductions. She is shown to be still working as TGT Teacher at Delhi Public School. She alleged that her mother is dependent upon her for her medical assistance. Her salary slip of March 2021 has been filed on record showing net monthly salary of Rs. 50478/-.
22. It is also a matter of record that complainant had filed an urgent application before Ld. Trial Court on 09.05.2022 alleging therein that pursuant to order dated 12.04.2019 while complainant was getting CCTV cameras installed at shared household on 18.11.2021, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started abusing her and shouting on her to stall the installation of CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 21/26 CCTV camera. Her sister-in-law/respondent no. 4 bit on her right hand and also snatched her phone and broke her gold chain. Her mother-in-law/respondent no. 2 caught hold of her ankles while her sister-in-law/respondent no. 4 attacked on her with hammer. She was pushed to the ground several times. She was threatened to be killed and she sustained various injuries, the matter was got reported to the Police on 18.11.2021 and she was medically examined at Acharya Shri Bhikshu Hospital. Later on, she was admitted to ICU at Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute and discharged on 19.11.2021. She gave her complaint to PS- Punjabi Bagh and a non-cognizable offence information report under 155 Cr. P. C. bearing MCR No. 71/2021 dated 23.11.2021 under Section 323/506/34 IPC was registered in the matter. Subsequently, FIR No. 993/2021 U/s 323/341/34 IPC was registered on 26.11.2021. In the said application, relief under Section 21 DV Act for imposition of penalty on the respondents was prayed.
23. In their reply to the application, counter allegations were made against the complainant and it was stated that she had used abusive and violent language and conduct towards respondent no. 2, pushed her and hit her physically and when respondent no. 4 intervened to save respondent no. 1, she was also giving beatings. They have also annexed their corresponding MLCs conducted by IO at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital on 18.11.2021 itself. It is also stated that their NCR No. 70/2021 U/s 323/506 IPC dated 23.11.2021 has also been registered in the matter.
24. The fact that the complainant was injured because of some incident that had taken place between her and her in laws is a matter of record as cross-FIRs have been registered in the matter.
CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 22/26 There are various medical documents of the complainant placed on record showing that she has been receiving various kinds of treatments including physiotherapy and counselling because of the injuries sustained by her. It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent husband that the complainant was not severely injured in the alleged reported incident which is clear from her MLC made on the date of incident at Acharya Shree Bhikshu Hospital, however, in order to explore the things and obtain illegal benefits, she exaggerated her injuries and got admitted in Action Medical Institute and thereafter, started obtaining alleged treatments from private doctors to show that she was no longer in a position to work so that she can obtain maximum maintenance from the respondent husband. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant wife that the effect of the injury she had sustained due to being pushed on 18.11.2021 on the neurological system of the complainant came to highlight only on the next day and that was the reason why she was admitted in ICU in Action Medical Institute. There is nothing on record to presume that the medical documents regarding her injury in the spine and neck are manipulated by the complainant in any manner. Moreover, it is difficult to presume that a lady separated from her husband and having a good secure job in a school of repute will merely resign from her job in order to simply claim maintenance from her estranged husband.
25. These submissions regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant, the reason and the manner in which the injuries were sustained, the persons responsible for the same and the effect of the injuries on her day to day life and her ability to work are disputed questions of facts which can be decided only after CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 23/26 appreciation of evidence led by both the parties. However, from the documents available on record as well as submissions made by the parties, it is amply clear that there is nothing on record to presume that complainant wife is having any source of income since the date of her resignation i.e. 31.07.2022. It has also come on record that the complainant is incurring various kinds of medical expenses on day to day basis for one reason or the other. The complainant wife was also directed to furnish her affidavit regarding her estimated monthly medical expenses along with relevant documents which has been placed on record and during the course of arguments, it has been submitted that the complainant is incurring an estimated monthly medical expenses of about Rs. 10-15,000/-. Since, the DV Act is a beneficial legislation and provision of interim maintenance is designed to ensure that the vagrancy of estranged wives is avoided and they are able to maintain themselves as well as fight the litigations against their husbands, accordingly, in my opinion, at this interim stage, it is required that the complainant wife is awarded reasonable amount of maintenance so that she is in a position to maintain herself in the same standard of living as the husband as well as bear her medical expenses.
26. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court had awarded interim maintenance to the complainant wife w.e.f. 31.07.2022 i.e. the date of her resignation. I find no infirmity or illegality in the said directions of Ld. Trial Court as prior to that the complainant wife was having a stable source of income and was in a position to maintain herself considering the estimated earnings of the respondent husband.
27. As regards the quantum of maintenance, Ld. Trial Court CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 24/26 had awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month in favour of the complainant along with future medical expenses to be incurred by her. This term "future medical expenses to be incurred by her" has become a bone of contention between the parties as it is open for misuse by both the parties. Perusal of the TCR also shows that since the passing of the directions in this regard, the only proceedings that are going on are regarding furnishing of medical bills, their verification, applications u/s 340 CrPC regarding furnishing of false medical bills and hearings on the said applications. Till date, even the evidence of the complainant has not been recorded before Ld. Trial Court. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that this phrase, "future medical expenses to be incurred by her" is replaced by a fixed amount in order to save the judicial time of the court and unnecessary objections by both the parties.
28. In view of the reasons given above, I deem it appropriate to award interim maintenance @ Rs. 62,000/- per month in favour of the complainant wife and against the respondent husband w.e.f 31.07.2022 till her remarriage/entitlement as per law to be paid by 10th of each English calendar month. This maintenance amount shall be inclusive of her medical expenses.
29. No infirmity is found in the finding of Ld. Trial Court that since the complainant wife is residing in the matrimonial home, no order is passed for giving her rentals for alternate accommodation, nor this finding has been challenged in any of the appeals.
30. It is directed that the arrears of maintenance, if any be cleared within 6 months from today. Payment received towards maintenance or medical expenses by the complainant wife in this CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 25/26 case or any other case shall stand adjusted.
31. With these directions, both the appeals stand disposed off and impugned order dated 06.09.2022 is modified accordingly.
32. TCR be sent back with a copy of this judgment.
33. Appeal files be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Announced in open Court 2024.10.09
16:29:58
Dated: 09.10.2024. +0530
(Shivali Sharma)
Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
09.10.2024.
CA No. 1552023 Deepika Malhotra Vs Ritesh Grover CA No. 2902022 Ritesh Grover Vs Deepika Malhotra PS Punjabi Bagh Page No. 26/26