Scribd
Upload
300 views6 pages

Manju Sharma Vs Vipin On 1 July, 2019

Manju Sharma filed a petition against Vipin seeking enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 40,000 per month. The Court enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 30,000 per month based on evidence that Vipin had undisclosed businesses and sources of income beyond what was claimed. The Court found Vipin had not truthfully disclosed his income and erred in assessing it at a very low level. The enhancement was deemed necessary to meet the needs of Manju and her daughter who had medical expenses. The arrears were also ordered to be paid in installments.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 8GvuZyB5Vw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
300 views6 pages

Manju Sharma Vs Vipin On 1 July, 2019

Manju Sharma filed a petition against Vipin seeking enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 40,000 per month. The Court enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 30,000 per month based on evidence that Vipin had undisclosed businesses and sources of income beyond what was claimed. The Court found Vipin had not truthfully disclosed his income and erred in assessing it at a very low level. The enhancement was deemed necessary to meet the needs of Manju and her daughter who had medical expenses. The arrears were also ordered to be paid in installments.

Uploaded by

Anonymous 8GvuZyB5Vw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Manju Sharma vs Vipin on 1 July,

2019
Delhi High Court

Manju Sharma vs Vipin on 1 July, 2019

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


% Judgment reserved on :
23rd May, 2019
Judgment delivered
on:01stJuly, 2019

+ CRL.REV.P. 103/2015

MANJU SHARMA
..... Petitioner

versus

VIPIN
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Lal Singh Thakur and Mr.
SudhirTewatia, Adv.
with petitioner in person.

For the Respondent: Mr. Kunal Rawat, Adv.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 01.11.2014 whereby the appellate


court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner impugning order
dated 06.06.2013 whereby the trial court had fixed the maintenance
for the petitioner and her daughter at Rs. 10,000/- per month with
effect 13.09.2011.

2. Parties were married on 11.07.2008. On 02.05.2009, a daughter was


born who is in the care and custody of the petitioner.

3. As per the petitioner she was turned out of her house on 14.11.2010
on account of failure to bring enough dowry and to give a car.

4. The respondent has filed proceedings for divorce which are


pending. The petitioner filed the subject petition under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

5. By the impugned order dated 06.06.2013, the trial court held that
respondent had not clearly disclosed his income and the assertion
that he was earning only Rs. 12,000/- per month was unbelievable
and accordingly prima facie assessed his income at Rs. 30,000/- and
awarded Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner and her daughter.

6. The appellate court by the impugned order found no infirmity in


the view taken by the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner seeking enhancement.

7. Petitioner impugns the said order and seeks enhancement of the


maintenance to Rs. 40,000/- per month besides an order for
residence.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent is engaged in


several businesses and engaged in the business of manufacturing and
sale of R.O. Water Purifier and has a turnover of approximately Rs.
One Crore and employs nearly 10 persons.

9. Further it is contended that the respondent is also engaged in sale


and purchase of used cars. Further it is contended that the father of
the respondent in his evidence in a suit for injunction filed by him
against the petitioner had deposed that there is a jewellery showroom
on the ground floor of their property which was being run by him
and his two sons including the respondent. The showroom was being
run under the name and style of Vipin Jewellers. However, he stated
that the said shop was closed. He further deposed in his statement
that he and his son/respondent - Vipin were jointly running the shop
earlier. The other son was doing his computer hardware business.

10. Petitioner has contended that the trial court as well as the
appellate court has erred in not appreciating that respondent had
several businesses and several sources of income and had misled the
court and had not disclosed his correct income. Further it is
contended that the daughter of the parties has an eye ailment for
which she requires regular treatment and expense of approximately
Rs. 5000/- per month is spent on her education and upbringing.
Further it is contended by the petitioner that the daughter urgently
requires an operation and does not have funds for the same.

11. Per contra, the respondent has contended that his income is only
Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

12. In support of the contention, the petitioner has placed on record


several website listings of Genesis Traders, which is stated to be a
sole proprietorship concern and claims to have a turnover of about
Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. One Crore per annum. She has further placed on
record the website listings to show that respondent is engaged in the
business of sale/purchase of second hand car dealings.
13. Medical record of the daughter has also been placed on record
which shows regular visits to the doctor and expenditure being
incurred by the petitioner.

14. Further the trial court as well as the appellate court have found
that the respondent has not been truthful in his disclosure.

15. Clearly, the appellate court has erred in placing the burden of
proof on the petitioner and has erred in holding that she has not
placed the details of contract with regard to the RO Water business of
the respondent. The listings which are placed on various websites by
the respondent prima facie show a turn over of Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs.
One Crore per annum. Further the website listings placed on record
prima facie show that the respondent is also engaged in the business
of sale and purchase of second- hand cars. Even the father of the
respondent had stated that he was engaged in jewellery business
along with the respondent though the business is stated to be closed
today. At the stage of assessment of interim maintenance, court has to
only form a prima facie opinion.

16. It has also been brought on record that respondent has even
visited Bangkok in the year 2012; though it is contended that the visit
was sponsored by a friend. However, no details as to who had
sponsored that visit and why, has been placed on record. It has
further been brought on record that the respondent is also engaged in
IT Business under the name and style of Om Sai Solutions wherein
also the turnover is shown as Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. One Crore per
annum.

17. The Supreme Court of India in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena,


(2015) 6 SCC 353 has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial
suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons
provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be
made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if
they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily
mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown
away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere
else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she
would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the
status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of
the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a
proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to
deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to
the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance
with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the
husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A
situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is
compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is
totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the
financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with
physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless
there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get
maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.

18. The rationale for grant of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
as expounded by the Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh
(supra) applies on all fours to the grant of maintenance under the DV
Act.

19. Regular medical expenditure being incurred by the petitioner on


her daughter is approximately Rs. 5,000/- per month besides her
educational expenses and other day-to-day expenditure.

20. In my view the trial court as well as the appellate court had erred
in assessing the income of the respondent and fixing interim
maintenance on a very lower scale. Keeping in mind the requirement
of the petitioner and her daughter, the interim maintenance needs to
be enhanced. In view of the material placed by the petitioner on
record and the expenditure required to be incurred, I am of the view
that the interim maintenance should be enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per
month.

21. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. The


respondent is directed to clear the entire arrears of maintenance in
three equal monthly instalments with the first instalment being
payable within two weeks from today. The respondent shall continue
to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- till the final adjudication
by the trial court. The arrears shall be payable from the date of filing
of the application before the trial court i.e. 13.09.2011.

22. It is clarified that the above assessment is prima facie and would
be subject to final orders passed by the trial court after parties have
led their evidences.

23. The petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

24. Order Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JULY 01, 2019 'rs'

You might also like