Full Judgment Text
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Judgment: 30 October, 2018
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 150/2018 & C.M.26711/2018
ATUL SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Jyoti Gupta, Advocate with
appellant in person.
versus
DEEPTI SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kirat Randhawa, Advocate with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 05.04.2018 passed
by the Family Court on an application filed by the respondent under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance for herself
and her minor son, who is 5 ½ years of age. We may note that the
Family Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urged before this
Court that the Family Court has failed to take into account that the
appellant is doing panditai and is earning only Rs.6,000/- per month. It
is submitted that the Family Court has lost sight of the fact that for a
MAT.APP(F.C.)150/2018 Page 1 of 4
person who is earning Rs.6,000/- per month, it is impossible for him to
pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel also
contends that the affidavit placed on record would show that the
respondent claims that she is spending Rs.10,000/- on
groceries/food/personal care and clothing whereas admittedly she is
residing at her parental house with her mother, brother and her sister-in-
law. Thus, in case, the amount of Rs.10,000/- is being spent on food
and groceries then the same is to be divided amongst five persons.
Counsel for the appellant further contended that this amount is borne by
her brother.
2. Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity and
illegality in the impugned order. She further submits that it is
unbelievable that a person who is a post-graduate and MBA earns only
Rs.6000/- per month. It is contended that in addition to performing
Pooja, the appellant also runs various centers like Saparya Vastu Astro
Research & Training Centre, Vartamana India Prediction Pvt. Ltd.,
Saparya Vastu Astro Point, Satyam Gamay and Shandilya Prakashan,
which are being run by him and his family members. In addition, he is
an editor in Satyam Gamay . It is submitted that he is author of various
books including a book namely ‘ Rig-Vediya Sri Sukta ’, which has been
produced before us. Counsel further submits that it is extremely
difficult for the respondent to maintain herself and her 5 ½ years old
son and her presence in the house of her brother is also causing a rift
amongst them.
3. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully
examined the impugned order.
MAT.APP(F.C.)150/2018 Page 2 of 4
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.)
v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., reported at (1997) 7 SCC 7 has
also recognized the fact that spouses in the proceedings for maintenance
do not truthfully disclose their true income and therefore some guess
work on the part of the Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court
has also observed that “ considering the diverse claims 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 ”
5. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
parties, we find that the Family Court has rightly observed that the
appellant is concealing his true income. We also find that this
conclusion has rightly been reached by the Family Court, for the reason
that the appellant claims that although he is post-graduate but he earns
only Rs.6,000/- per month. We may note that during the course of
hearing the appellant has denied that he is author of any book till the
time, a copy of which was handed over in Court. It may be noted that
the appellant has admitted that he was a director in Vartamana
Prediction Private Limited from where he has resigned. However,
counsel submits that the appellant was in fact a promotor of the said
company. A reading of the impugned order shows that the appellant is
part of magazine ‘ Satyam Gamay ’ which has of course been denied by
the appellant but looking into the book, which he has published, we
have no reason to disbelieve that the appellant is editor of the aforesaid
magazine. We find that the appellant has concealed his true income and
MAT.APP(F.C.)150/2018 Page 3 of 4
there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 05.04.2018 passed
by the family Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal alongwith the pending
application stand dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
JYOTI SINGH, J
OCTOBER 30, 2018
rb
MAT.APP(F.C.)150/2018 Page 4 of 4