25000 to MCom BEd Wife based on husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence etc Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

Rs 25000 p.m. to a well qualified MCom BEd wife, purely based on DV case being filed and husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence proven etc …. Do discussion about woman’s own responsibility to maintain herself !! Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

most women get away with maintenance the moment they file a DV case or a sec 125 case !! Here, a honourable court’s orders 25000 p.m to a well qualified Mcom BEd wife

In this decision, every aspect of the husband’s salary and deductions are discussed. A huge sum of Rs 25 K month is awarded, which is easily equivalent to 50 lakhs deposit in a nationalised bank (7.5% interest, 5% net of tax )

This is granted to the woman though she was working as Government primary teacher under U.P. State Government. Though She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and the husband arguing that she can easily maintain herself ….

Throughout the order, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING is discussed about who is the erring party, why should the wife be paid maintenance, has she proven domestic violence, why should a well educated woman be paid etc etc ?

Now ppl may revert saying this must be at the interim stage…which is PRECISELY my point… IF the “interim” stage means Rs 3 lakhs per annum and drags on for three / four years, what happens to “justice” ? and “merits of the case” ???


Delhi District Court

In The Matter Of :­ vs Sumant Sahni on 24 May, 2016

Author: Naresh Kumar Malhotra

IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ­05 : WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.A No. ­5/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0055272015

In the matter of :­
Aarti Jain,
W/o Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
R/o 42, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi­ 110026. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­51
Also at:
Colt Technology Service India Pvt. Ltd.
1st ­ 4th Floor, Building No. 4, Unitech Sez, Tikri,
Sector­ 48, Gurgaon­ 122002. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

AND

C.A No. ­ 45/15 & Old No. 1/4/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0001902015

In the matter of :­
Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­ 110051. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Smt. Aarti Jain,
W/o Sh. Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
At 42, G.F, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, Delhi­ 110026. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

JUDGEMENT

  1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the appeal bearing No. 05/15 filed by appellant Aarti Jain against her husband Sumant Sahni against the order dated 24.11.2014, vide which the Ld. MM has directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders. Ld. MM has also held that this amount includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well. Respondent was also directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within five months from the date of this order. It was also ordered that amount paid or payable by the respondent to the complainant either in this case or in any other proceedings shall be adjusted accordingly.

The respondent Sumant Sahni has also challenged the order dated 24.11.2014 and filed CA No. 45/15. As both the appeals bearing No. 5/15 & 45/15 are arising out of order dated 24.11.2014, I am deciding both the appeals together.

  1. The appellant Arti Jain has filed the appeal bearing No. 5/15 on the ground that order dated 24.11.2014 has been passed by the Ld. MM without applying judicial mind and facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. MM has ignored the cogent evidences submitted by the appellant. Ld. MM has not considered the fact that amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month is at lower side and same is liable to be enhanced according to the status and life style of the parties. The respondent has deliberately not filed complete information in the affidavit. Ld. MM has not taken adverse inference of the proved facts and the respondent has not disclosed his real income. The respondent has not disclosed about the bank statements, the bank accounts, income, investment and other assets. The respondent has not filed ITR of the previous year. The respondent is a CA and he has also done C.S from ICAI Delhi and ICSI, Delhi. The respondent is capable of doing multiple dimensional jobs and has multiple source of income other than the salary. He has intentionally concealed his income. The respondent is also visiting abroad and doing private practice. It is also mentioned that ITR of the respondent does not show his correct income. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned in the order that respondent has not disclosed his correct income. It is also mentioned that respondent in his Jeevansathi profile has mentioned his yearly income as Rs. 15­20 lacs. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside and the appellant be granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,20,000/­ per month.
  2. The respondent Sumant Sahni has also filed appeal bearing No. 45/15 on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has erred in law thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the respondent on account of interim maintenance and that too without any basis. The respondent in the present appeal Smt. Aarti Jain has failed to file complete bank statement. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that Aarti Jain is working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government and this fact is concealed by Aarti Jain deliberately. Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent i.e. Aarti Jain is a well educated lady, post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she has enough source of income. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside.

  3. Reply to both the appeals filed by the respondent therein and they denied the contents of the appeal.

  4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties in both the appeals and perused the records of both the appeals as well as Trial Court Record very carefully.

  5. Perusal of the file reveals that Aarti Jain has filed petition u/s. 12 r/w Section 18,19,20,22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the averments that she was married with Sumant Sahni on 06.05.2011. After marriage the respondent i.e. Sumant Sahni started demanding flat, a Honda City Car, gold items (2­3 tolas), cash of Rs. 10 lacs. It is also mentioned that she was harassed and tortured for not bringing adequate dowry. She has also mentioned that respondent Sumant Sahni is a man of means, well settled and monthly income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2 lacs per month. He is also having income from shares/ debentures and from private practice. The total income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2.5 lacs per months. The respondent is having properties at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, Noida and F­214, Unitec Vista, Sector 70A, Gurgaon.

7. In reply, the respondent Sumant Sahni has denied that appellant Aarti Jain was ever harassed or tortured on account of dowry. The complainant used to threaten him. She had taken all the jewellery articles and filed a false case against him. As per respondent his in hand salary is Rs. 95,000/­ pm out of which he is paying the installment of loan amount. It is also mentioned that complainant is a qualified lady and she was working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she can easily maintain herself.

  1. The Ld. MM vide order dated 24.11.2014 directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders.

9. The respondent Sumant Sahni has filed affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court and in the affidavit he has mentioned his monthly income as Rs. 1,07,155/­. He has also placed on record the pay slip for the month of June, 2014 which shows that his monthly income is Rs. 1,91,786/­, Rs. 11,309/­ is being deducted on account of provident fund, a sum of Rs. 23,560/­ is being deducted on account voluntarily provident fund and a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ is being deducted on account of Matching Grant Scheme. Thus, after deduction monthly income of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 1,07,155/­.

During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that a sum of Rs. 45,940/­ is being paid by the respondent as house loan. This fact is not denied any where by the appellant that respondent has not taken housing loan and he is not making payment of Rs. 45,940 as house loan. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that respondent Sumant Sahni has filed an application for change of home loan from HDFC bank to SBI and this application was allowed by the Ld. MM vide order dated 04.01.2014. Thus, it is not denied that respondent is paying housing loan of Rs. 45,940/­. If we deduct the amount of Rs. 45,940/­ from 1,07,155/­, the salay in hand of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 61,215/­. Thus, Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of respondent to Rs. 75,000/­ to 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the complainant.

Ld. Counsel for respondent Sumant Sahni had placed reliance on judgment (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 372 titled as “Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen alias Harpreet Kaur”.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”.

  1. During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for appellant Aarti Jain that respondent Sumant Sahni is also earning by doing private practice but no document has been placed on record to show that respondent Sumant Sahni is also doing private practice.

11. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent Sumant Sahni that appellant Aarti Jain is highly qualified and she was working at the time of marriage as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government.

No document has been placed on record by the respondent Sumant Shani to show that Aarti Jain is still working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. Thus, it cannot be said that Aarti Jain is working at present.

  1. In the appeal filed by appellant Aarti Jain, she has also prayed that residential order in matrimonial shared household be granted. The appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the Ld. MM in the order dated 24.11.2014 has mentioned that the amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well.
  • In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 24.11.2014 and the Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of Sumant Sahni as Rs. 75,000/­ to Rs. 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to Aarti Jain. Both the appeals filed by Aarti Jain & Sumant Sahni are without any merits are same are hereby dismissed.

  • Copy of this common judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.

    Appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.

    Announced in the Open Court on 24.05.2016

    (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
    ASJ­05 (West)/THC/Delhi

    *****************************disclaimer**********************************
    This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


    CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
    *******************************************************************************

     

    Advertisements

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s