Delhi High Court
Vikas Harjai vs Chetna Harjai on 11 July, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
Bench: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.07.2012
+ CM(M) 59/2012
VIKAS HARJAI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Pradeep Chandel, Adv. alongwith
petitioner in person
versus
CHETNA HARJAI ..... Respondent
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL)
1. By way of this petition, petitioner/husband has challenged impugned order dated 29.08.2011 by which the learned trial court has disposed of two applications, both under section 24 of HMA, one filed by respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband for grant of interim maintenance to her as well as for the child and other filed by the petitioner/husband against the respondent/wife for grant of interim maintenance to him.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner/husband has submitted that the respondent/wife is employed as a Scientist with the Department of Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi having net salary of Rs. 27,000/- per month. She is gainfully employed and as such is not entitled for CM(M) 59/2012 Page 1 of 6 maintenance pendente lite in the divorce petition filed by him against the respondent/wife. It is submitted that earning of respondent/wife are sufficient for her maintenance as well as that of the minor child who is 6 years of age. It is further submitted that petitioner/husband is not employed. He is unable to work due to the complaints by the respondent/wife and in these circumstances no order of interim maintenance could have been passed in favour of respondent/wife. It is further stated that rather the wife is earning sufficient amount and the interim maintenance ought to have been awarded to him.
3. Before the learned trial court, petitioner/husband has taken a stand that he is working as a temporary employee with a Private Ltd. Company and has alleged that his movements have been crippled due to filing of complaints by the wife. On the other hand, respondent/wife has alleged that petitioner/husband is employed with NIIT Technologies on a package of Rs.80,000/- per month along with other incentives. Respondent/wife has also alleged that he owns a car also.
4. The petitioner/husband has not disclosed his income before the learned trial court. The observation of the learned trial court in this regard is as under:-
CM(M) 59/2012 Page 2 of 6
"9. It is admitted by the husband that he is working as a temporary employee with a Private Ltd. Company, but his movements have been crippled due to filing of criminal case by the applicant/wife.
10. The husband for the reasons best known to him has shirked himself in not disclosing his real income, though in Para 10 of his petition he has categorically mentioned that "the petitioner is a confirmed employee with a very reputed organization in IT Industry."
5. As regards the allegations of respondent/wife that petitioner/husband also owns a car, the learned trial court has noted that there is denial by petitioner/husband of owning a car with a particular registration number, accordingly the ld trial court has drawn the inference that he owns a car having a different registration number. The ld trial court has taken the income of husband around Rs. 60,000/- per month. The net income of respondent/wife is taken as Rs.27000/- per month. By the impugned order, interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month is awarded to respondent/wife and Rs.3000/- is awarded to child.
6. The stand taken by the petitioner/husband before this court is that he had lost his job as his wife approached his office several times and made complaints against him, as such no maintenance can be awarded to CM(M) 59/2012 Page 3 of 6 respondent/wife. However, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. On 17.01.2012, petitioner was directed to place on record the salary certificate of the company where he was working as is stated by him in Para 10 of the divorce petition. Even that salary certificate was not placed on record. He was also asked to file a detailed affidavit as to whether he had left the job of his own or was terminated for some reason. Thereafter, petitioner has placed on record a copy of the e-mail dated 29.10.2009 alleged to have been sent by him to his employer requesting for relieving him from services from 01.03.2010. Nothing is placed on record as to whether the alleged resignation has been accepted or not. There is no further correspondence placed on record. The ld trial court has passed the impugned order on 29.08.2011. The aforesaid e-mail was not placed on record before the ld trial court. No reason is stated as to why the same was not filed before the ld trial court. The same is filed for the first time on 04.07.2012. It is not even certified as a true copy. No reliance can be placed on aforesaid document.
7. Further the stand taken is that at the time of filing of divorce petition, the petitioner/husband was working with a reputed organization in IT Industry. Thereafter, he had to change the job due to alleged false CM(M) 59/2012 Page 4 of 6 complaints of respondent against him to his employer. Not even a single complaint is filed to substantiate his stand. No material is placed on record by which petitioner can substantiate the stand taken by him. Even the name of previous employer, salary drawn by him has not been stated. The petitioner/husband has deliberately concealed his income to avoid the liability of maintaining his wife and the child.
8. It may be noticed that vide impugned order, only interim maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month is awarded to respondent/wife and Rs. 3,000/- is awarded to the child. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has no objection in giving maintenance to the child but wife/wife ought not have been awarded interim maintenance as she is earning sufficient income.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances including the fact that husband has deliberately concealed his income and has not approached the court with clean hands, no illegality is seen in the impugned order which needs interference of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petition stands dismissed.
CM(M) 59/2012 Page 5 of 6 CM No. 939/2012 (stay) In view of the order on the main petition, no further orders are required on this application.
The same stands disposed of accordingly.
VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 11, 2012 kks CM(M) 59/2012 Page 6 of 6