Full Judgment Text
$~4 & 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 07 August 2023
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & CM APPLs. 35230/2023,
35231/2023, 35232/2023
MOHIT MITTAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate with
appellant in person.
versus
KANIKA JAIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand & Mr.
Akshay Thakur, Advocates.
5
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 & CM APPLs. 35233/2023,
35234/2023, 35235/2023
MOHIT MITTAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate with
appellant in person.
versus
KANIKA JAIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand & Mr.
Akshay Thakur, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present Appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has
been filed on behalf of the appellant/husband against the impugned Order
dated 19.04.2023 vide which the two Applications under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMA No. 1496/2018 and HMA No. 843/2018
claiming maintenance in the sum of Rs. 88,000/- per month or one-time
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 1 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21
expense of Rs. 4-5 lakhs as maintenance and litigation costs respectively on
the ground that due to multiple litigations initiated by the respondent/wife
against him, were dismissed.
2. The appellant/husband was married to the respondent/wife on
27.04.2016 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies.
3. Allegedly, the respondent/wife deserted the appellant/husband on
02.07.2016 i.e., after about two months of marriage.
4. The appellant/husband filed the petition bearing HMA No.
1496/2018 under Section 12(1)(c) read with Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce and the respondent/wife also filed petition
bearing HMA No. 843/2022 under Section 13(1) (ia) read with Section
13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce; both the
petitions are pending trial.
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid two divorce petitions, the
appellant sought maintenance in one case and litigation costs in the other
HMA petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the
respondent/wife.
6. Vide common Order dated 19.04.2023, the learned Principal Judge
dismissed both the Applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 of the appellant/husband. Aggrieved, the present Appeals have
been preferred by the appellant/husband.
7. The appellant/husband has asserted that till July, 2017, he was
working with M/s. Fidelity Information Service (FIS) as IT Architect and he
thereafter joined as Senior Architect with M/s. Sirion Labs. It is claimed by
the appellant that due to multifarious litigations against him, he lost his job
and thereafter, it became very difficult to get a new job for him, despite
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 2 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21
making all efforts. The appellant/husband using his contacts in United States
of America (USA) to start a Recruitment Outsourcing Process Business in
September, 2018, but the same also ended in a fiasco due to a false FIR No.
311/2017 filed by the respondent/wife in which the appellant/husband even
remained in judicial custody.
8. The appellant/husband considered to start a new career in the field of
law and thus, got himself admitted in Campus Law Centre, Delhi University
in July, 2019 and upon completion, he enrolled himself as an Advocate in
the year 2022. During that period of pursuing LLB, he had no source of
income and was solely dependent on his parents. He thus, claimed
maintenance in the sum of Rs. 88,000/- per month in HMA No. 843/2022
and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in HMA No. 1496/2018.
9. The respondent/wife has refuted the claim of maintenance/litigation
expense in her reply/response and claimed that the Applications under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are counter-blast of the petition
under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 (PWDV) and the criminal case against the appellant and his family
members.
10. The respondent submits that apart from getting a salary of Rs.
2,00,000/- per month while working as IT Architect with M/s. Fidelity
Information Services (FIS), he was having the income of Rs. 1,00,000/- per
month from the shares and bonds purchased from the market.
11. It is denied that the appellant lost his job as his physical and mental
health got affected on account of the respondent’s illicit relationship with
Dr. Vijaydeep Siddharth.
12. It is submitted that the appellant and the respondent separated on
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 3 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21
02.07.2016 and the appellant was employed till July, 2017 which is one year
after the appellant and this itself contradicts the claim of mental harassment
by the respondent. Further, the appellant cleared the entrance examination
for getting admission in Campus Law Centre, Delhi University to pursue
LLB, which also defies that the appellant was not mentally harassed as he
succeeded to crack the entrance examination.
13. The respondent/wife has thus, denied all the averments made in the
Applications under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
14. The appellant/husband in his Rejoinder to the Reply filed by the
respondent/wife has reaffirmed all the facts as made in the Applications
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
15. The two applications were dismissed by the learned Principal Judge,
vide Order dated 19.04.2023.
16. Submissions heard.
17. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is gender neutral and
permits either of the spouse, who is unable to maintain himself/herelf, to
claim maintenance from either spouse during the matrimonial litigation.
However, while ascertaining the entitlement of maintenance, it is pertinent
to consider the respective earnings and the earning capacity of both the
spouses.
18. It is not disputed by the appellant/husband that he has done Bachelor
of Engineering in Production and Industrial Engineering from the Delhi
College of Engineering in the year 1999. He was working with different
Companies till July, 2017, when he lost his job. He started his own business
but did not succeed. He thereafter, pursued LLB degree from Campus Law
Centre, Delhi University, and in the year 2022, he enrolled himself as an
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 4 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21
Advocate, though he has not been able to set up a practice and earn as an
Advocate.
19. On the other hand, it is not disputed that the respondent is an MBBS,
DNB Health, including Hospital Administration and is employed with All
India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS) as an Assistant
Professor (Contractual). The appellant/husband has claimed the
respondent/wife’s monthly salary is more than Rs. 2,00,000/- out of which,
the in-hand salary is Rs. 1,33,673 + Rs. 25,000/- (approximately from other
income) and the total in hand salary is 1,58,673/- per month.
20. During the course of arguments, it was not denied or disputed by the
appellant that during his employment till July, 2017, he was getting a salary
of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He also has admitted that he has invested in Shares and
Debentures which is approximately Rs. 20,00,000/-.
21. The appellant/husband submits that the said investments were made at
the time when he was in employment and was getting a salary of Rs.
2,00,000/- per month. A frivolous contention was made that the money for
purchase of shares and debentures was invested by the appellant’s father
who admittedly had retired in the year 2005, who was a Doctor, and is a
pensioner. It is very difficult to accept this contention of the
appellant/husband that money in the shares was invested by his father. Even
otherwise, it is not denied that he has a share standing of Rs. 20,00,000/-
which would be getting some returns for the appellant.
22. Moreover, the appellant/husband, who has just completed his LLB
and enrolled himself as an Advocate, may not be able to earn enough from
his practice immediately, but this is a case where the appellant/husband is a
well-qualified person, who has done Bachelor of Engineering in Production
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 5 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21
and Industrial Engineering and while in employment till July, 2017, he was
getting a salary of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. His claim that he has
no financial support or is unable to maintain or sustain himself cannot be
accepted as he must definitely be having some savings from his previous
earnings. Not only this, it cannot be visualised that he would be sitting
completely idle, he definitely would have some corpus or some resource
from where he is not only funding his litigation and also meeting his
day-to-day expenses.
23. The appellant/husband, apart from being a highly educated person, is
also a law graduate who has all the capacity to work and earn to support
himself. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly observed
that the appellant has “experience, intellect and professional capability” to
earn for himself.
24. The contention of the appellant/husband that on account of his arrest
in the criminal case and matrimonial litigation, he came under depression
and is unable to work is also not tenable for the simple reason that he has
been appearing in the Court regularly and has been pursuing/defending
himself in person in the present case and as well as in other litigations,
which believes his contention that he is unable to concentrate on work as he
is under depression.
25. The respondent/wife may be qualified and earning reasonably well,
but the appellant/husband is also highly qualified and was earning well from
his job till July, 2017. No doubt, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 entitles either spouse to claim maintenance but only on justified
grounds. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant/husband has not
been able to justify any ground to claim maintenance/litigation expenses
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 6 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21
from the respondent/wife.
26. We hereby conclude that the appellant/husband is an able-bodied and
highly qualified young man, who is capable of not only sustaining himself
but also to shine and succeed in his profession with some efforts. The claim
of maintenance in the sum of Rs. 88,000/- per month or one-time expense of
Rs. 4-5 lakhs as maintenance from the respondent/wife and also Rs.
3,00,000/- towards the litigation costs, has been rightly denied by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court for the aforesaid cogent and well-
defined reasons.
27. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Appeals and the same
are hereby dismissed along with pending applications.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 07, 2023
S.Sharma
Signature Not Verified
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 201/2023 & MAT.APP.(F.C.) 202/2023 Page 7 of 7
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.08.2023
12:31:21