Full Judgment Text
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on : 28th January, 2022
+ CRL.REV.P. 357/2020
CRL.M.A. 15896/2020 (for stay)
SH.BHAGWAN DASS .... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. M.A. Inayati, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. POONAM & ORS. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
JUDGMENT : (ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. By this revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting
st
aside/modification of the judgment dated 31 August 2020 passed by the
Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari
Courts directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of ₹3000/- per
th st
month to the respondent No. 1 with effect from 12 April 2010 till 31
December 2017, then at the rate of ₹4500/- per month with effect from
st st
1 January 2018 till 31 July 2020 and then at the rate of ₹10,000/- per
st
month with effect from 1 August 2020 till her life time or she gets
remarried after divorce from the petitioner. The petitioner was further
directed to pay an amount of ₹4000/- per month to the respondent No. 2
th st
with effect from 12 April 2010 till 31 December 2017, then at the rate
st st
of ₹4500/- per month with effect from 1 January 2018 till 31 July 2020
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 357/2020 Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21:57:44
st
and then at the rate of ₹6000/- per month with effect from 1 August
th
2020 till the date of majority of this child i.e. 8 November 2020. The
petitioner was further directed to pay an amount of ₹3000/- per month to
th st
the respondent No. 3 with effect from 12 April 2010 till 31 December
st
2017, then at the rate of ₹4500/- per month with effect from 1 January
st
2018 till 31 July 2020 and then at the rate of ₹6000/- per month with
st
effect from 1 August 2020 till the date of attaining majority by the
child. The petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of ₹7500/- to
each of the three respondents as litigation expenses for the period of
litigation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
clearly stated and filed a reply stating that he was able to earn ₹4000/-
per month at the time of filing reply to the petition and presently, he was
earning ₹16,000/- per month and thus, he was not in a position to pay the
amount directed vide impugned order as the same was beyond his
income and assets. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
st
Courts wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner till 31 December
st
2017 at ₹20,000/- per month and ₹27,000/- per month till 31 July 2020
st
and since 1 August 2020, the present income was assessed at ₹35,000/-
per month.
3. The petitioner did not file his bank statement before the Family
Court stating that he was not depositing his income in the bank. Claim
of the petitioner in his affidavit of income, assets and expenditure was
that he was working as a ‘freelance worker working at Karol Bagh, New
Delhi’, however, no other particulars were given. In his cross
examination, the petitioner denied that he was running a factory of rice
bags and shoes at D-290, Madipur, Delhi and claimed that he used to
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 357/2020 Page 2 of 5
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21:57:44
repair old shoes by visiting different factories and on further cross
examination, stated that he did not remember the names of those
factories. The petitioner claimed that he resided at D-290, Madipur,
Delhi and that the house belonged to his mother but on further cross
examination, he admitted that it was he who sold this house to his
mother. However, he did not remember the year when this house was
sold by him to his mother.
4. The respondents placed on record photographs of the electricity
bills relating to the house No. D-289/290, J.J.Colony, Madipur for the
months of September 2012 and June 2015, in which the electricity bills
for the premises were raised in the name of the petitioner. It is thus
evident that not only premises No. 290, the petitioner even possessed
House No. D-289, J.J.Colony, Madipur. Further, in the affidavit, the
petitioner claimed that he had an expenditure of ₹15,500/- per month
including the amount of maintenance being paid to the respondents at the
rate of ₹10,000/- per month and that in addition, he was paying ₹82,960/-
per annum by way of life insurance and endowment policies but he did
not furnish the particulars about these policies nor the copies of the
policies were filed. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Courts noted that thus, even as per the own showing of the petitioner, he
was incurring an expenditure of ₹22,000/- per month.
5. The petitioner admittedly has a bank account but he has neither
disclosed the account number nor filed the copy of the bank statement.
The respondents had placed on record the photographs downloaded from
the Facebook page of the petitioner wherein, the petitioner has taken
certain selfies and he is seen visiting various places in India as tourist.
Even an Air Conditioner is seen at his premises and some of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 357/2020 Page 3 of 5
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21:57:44
photographs appeared to be of his workplace where he is sitting in an
office chair with CCTV camera screen installed near him. In two
photographs, the petitioner is seen with boxes of finished goods and in
one photograph, he is seen standing near a new SUV and in some other
photographs, he is seen travelling wearing decent attires. Thus, on the
basis of the standard of living of the petitioner, the Court assessed the
present income of the petitioner at ₹35,000/- per month.
6. In the decision reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10828 Vijay
Kushwaha vs. Chanchal , this Court in an appeal where the
appellant/husband failed to produce any documentary proof with regard
to his employment status and also his actual income and by not
disclosing his source of income, held that the appellant/husband is trying
to defeat the legitimate right of the respondent/wife to claim
maintenance and also shirking his responsibilities. In such situation, the
Court held that it was not to allow the relief of reduction in amount of
maintenance to the appellant/husband when he himself has not come
with clean hands and is trying to hide the true facts from the Court.
7. In the decision reported as (1997) 7 SCC 7 Jasbir Kaur Sehgal
(Smt.) vs. District Judge, Dehradun, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that while awarding maintenance, the Court has to consider the status of
the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having
regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those he
is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. It was further held that when diverse claims are made by the
parties, one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of
conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the
husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 357/2020 Page 4 of 5
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21:57:44
8. As noted above, the petitioner is clearly evasive in his affidavit.
He has neither filed his bank statement nor his income tax returns as he
does not pay the income tax. However, from the life style of the
petitioner, the findings of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Courts assessing his income at ₹35,000/- per month is a fair assessment
of the income and hence, this Court finds no error in the impugned order
as admittedly, the respondent No. 1 has no means to support herself as
she is not working and has two children to look after as well.
9. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 28, 2022
akb
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 357/2020 Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Signing Date:31.01.2022
21:57:44