IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
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 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:-
“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
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
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 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.
Sd/- VEENA BIRBAL, J
JULY 11, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment