Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Manpreet Singh Bhatia vs Sumita Bhatia on 20 October, 2016

Rahul Vashishth vs Ms. Navita Vasishth on 7 December, 2018

5. The   "affidavit  qua   assets,   liabilities,   income     and expenditure"  dated 09/10/2017 filed by appellant­husband (CA no. 126/18) before ld. Trial Court is inherently contradictory.  In part­I   bearing   heading   "personal   information   relating   to CA No: 126/2018 & CA NO. 171/18 12 of 16 deponent", at serial no. 10, appellant­husband has admitted his personal income approximately as Rs. 18,313/­ per month, while in   part­IV,   bearing   heading   "statement   of   income",   para   (iv) bearing   heading   "gross   income   including   the   salary,   DA, commissions/incentives, bonus, perks etc.", it is mentioned that he receives Rs. 15,000/­ per month on account of salary from the month of  April, 2017   but  at  serial  no. 45  pertaining to "total income",   no   amount   is   mentioned   and   only   words   "NA"   are mentioned,   which   are   inherently   contradictory   and   cannot   be true.  It cannot be said that the said serial no. 45 relating to total income,   was   not   applicable   to   the   appellant­husband. Furthermore, Part (iv) bearing heading "interest on investments including deposits, NSC, IVP, KVP, post office schemes, PPF, loans etc.", the  appellant­husband has claimed that he is having PPF account no. 886 ledger  folio no. 5/164   having amount of  Rs. 390803.36 p. but it is not clear as to what is the annual interest from the said PPF account. Ld. Counsel for the appellant­husband has stated that out of the said amount, Rs. 36,261/­ per annum is interest from the PPF account. It is also mentioned as discussed above that appellant­husband is having three loan LIC policies, one of Rs. 77,000/­, another Rs. 1,74,000/­ and the third one is Rs. 45,000/­, but nowhere it is mentioned as to how much total EMI he is paying on the said loans.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant­ husband has stated that in the amended affidavit filed today, no EMI   qua   the   same   paid   is   mentioned   as   the   loan   amount including   interest,   will   be   deducted   from   the   matured   policy amounts.   The aforesaid inherent contradictions   in the affidavit dated 09/10/2017 of the husband should have been noticed by CA No: 126/2018 & CA NO. 171/18 13 of 16 the   ld.   Trial   Court   and   the   learned   Trial   Court   ought   to   have sought clarification from the appellant­husband and directed him to   file   fresh   correct   affidavit   of  assets,   liabilities,   income     and expenditure.  It is beyond comprehension as to when there were so many inherent contradictions in the aforesaid affidavit, which ld.   Counsel   for   the   appellant­husband   claimed   was   due   to typographical/clerical   error,   still   how   the   learned   Trial   Court assessed   the   monthly   income   of   the   appellant­husband   after considering   the   total   monthly   income   on   the   basis   of   the   said affidavit. Furthermore, ld. Trial Court has merely relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the  case of  Manpreet Singh Bhatia Vs. Sumita Bhatia 234 (2016) DLT 95 (DB), wherein it was held that where there was sufficient means in the family of the husband on the strength of which he got married, he has to share   the   burden   to   support   his   wife   during   the   course   of annulment of such marriage. However in the said judgment cited by learned Trial Court, it is mentioned that besides four luxury cars, husband and his family were having plot of land measuring 100 square yards in Rajouri Garden, whereas in fact in the said citation, plot is mentioned to be of 1000 square yards.  No doubt some amount of guess work is permitted in assessing the monthly income of the husband.   Once the total monthly income of the husband  was not  clear  from  the  aforesaid affidavit  of  husband filed before ld. Trial Court, it has not been mentioned by learned Trial Court as to how merely on the basis of judgment relied, it arrived at the magical figure of income of at least Rs. 80,000/­ per month of the husband and why not at least 60,000/­ or at least Rs. One lac per month.  Since the aforesaid fresh corrected CA No: 126/2018 & CA NO. 171/18 14 of 16 affidavit has been filed by the appellant­husband, therefore in my considered   opinion,   it   would   be   appropriate   if   the   same   is considered   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   afresh   in   view   of   the aforesaid contradictions pointed out in the previous affidavit of the husband. Hence the impugned order dated 29/06/2018 is set aside  and the matter is remanded back to learned Trial Court to pass order on interim maintenance application after considering the   amended   affidavit   of   husband   and   giving   opportunity   to parties to address arguments. In view of the fact that lot of time has elapsed and the fact that interim maintenance awarded to the wife is a benevolent provision for destitute women, the matter  be sent   back   to   learned   Trial   Court   for   arguments   afresh   on   the interim   maintenance   application,   for   10/12/2018   at   2.00   p.m. Learned   counsels   for   parties   have   undertaken   that   they   shall address the  arguments before learned Trial  Court on  said date and time. Ld. Trial Court is also requested to make endeavour to decide   the   said   interim   maintenance   application   application within 15 days, in view of the fact that already some delay has occured in the grant of interim relief claimed by the respondent no.1­wife.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Sharma vs Geeta & Anr on 21 November, 2025

3.5. Without prejudice to the above, it is also submitted that the Family Court ought, at the very least, to have considered and decided the Petitioner's request for visitation rights, particularly when he has consistently expressed willingness to maintain his minor daughter. Reliance is placed on Manpreet Singh Bharia v. Sumita Bhatia 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5598, to contend that a father who is prepared to shoulder financial responsibility for his child should ordinarily not be denied an opportunity to maintain contact with her. On this basis too, it is urged that the impugned order warrants interference.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Ku. Anya Agrawal vs Priyanka Agrawal on 16 December, 2025

"3.5. Without prejudice to the above, it is also submitted that the Family Court ought, at the very least, to have considered and decided the Petitioner's request for visitation rights, particularly when he has consistently expressed willingness to maintain his minor daughter. Reliance is placed on Manpreet Singh Bharia v. Sumita Bhatia 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5598, to contend that a father who is prepared to shoulder financial responsibility for his child should ordinarily not be denied an opportunity to maintain contact with her. On this basis too, it is urged that the impugned order warrants interference.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document
1