Tag Archives: delhi district court

Educated #woman cannot be #Parasite !! #Famous #Delhi District court : Ms. Parveen Raza vs Syed Intekhab Ali

/////10. The appellant herself is a well educated lady having post graduation degree i.e. MA, B. Ed. and LL.B. and is reported to be more qualified than the respondent. She can earn herself on her own. She is not supposed to sit idle at home and be parasite on the earnings of respondent./////

Though this judgement is hailed in MANY quarters, please note that the husband has been asked to pay Rs 5000 p.m. with 10% enhancements in following years, so this is NOT a zero maintenance case

The key issues here are that (a) the wife sought Rs 25000 p.m. but failed and (b) the court dealt with the wife’s qualifications …so PLEASE USE THIS order with caution !!

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Delhi District Court

Ms. Parveen Raza vs Syed Intekhab Ali on 17 March, 2017

IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­02 : SOUTH EAST

SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI

IN RE: Criminal Appeal No.204410/16
ID No.DLSE01­004414­2016

Ms. Parveen Raza
W/o Syed Intekhab Ali
D/o Late Sh. M.Y. Salim Raza
R/o H.No.82, COT, GF,
Nizamuddin West,
New Delhi . . . . Appellant
Through : Shri Dalip Singh,
Advocate

versus

Syed Intekhab Ali
S/o Dr. Anwar Ali
R/o 915, Haveli Azam Khan,
Gali No. Mochiyan,
Delhi ­110006
. . . . . Respondent
Through : Shri A.H. Khan, Advocate


Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date when arguments were heard : 20.02.2017 & 14.03.2017

Date of Judgment : 17.03.2017

CA No.204410/16

 

JUDGMENT :

  1. 1. The present appeal filed by appellant under section 29 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘The PWDV Act’) seeks to challenge order dated 27.03.2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short MM), Mahila Court, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No.6/2/12 Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin titled as “Parveen Raza Vs. Syed Intekhab Ali”.
  2. 2. Appellant had filed complaint under section 12, 18, 19 and 20 of The PWDV Act before the court of learned MM. Alongwith her complaint, she also filed an application for seeking interim relief for maintenance. The application of appellant was decided by learned MM vide order dated 10.06.08. Learned MM was pleased to direct the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ per month of appellant from the date of filing of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  3. 3. Both the parties, feeling aggrieved by order of learned MM dated 10.06.08, challenged the same in appeal. The appeals preferred by both the parties was heard by learned Appellate Court and was disposed off vide common judgment dated 06.02.10. The appeal preferred by both the parties was dismissed being devoid of merit.
  4. 4. Thereafter, appellant filed an application before the court of learned MM for seeking enhancement / modification of order dated 10.06.08 in the maintenance amount. In her application, the appellant CA No.204410/16 Page 2 of 6 prayed to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/­ to Rs.25,000/­. The application of appellant was decided by learned MM vide order dated 27.03.15. The amount of maintenance was enhanced by 10% every year pending from 2012 till the date of order.
  5. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 27.03.2015, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
  6. 6. On notice, respondent appeared through his counsel to contest the appeal. Respondent also filed detailed written reply to the appeal of appellant.
  7. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Dalip Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Shri A.H. Khan, learned counsel for respondent and carefully perused the material on record of the case.
  8. 8. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and for better appreciation of the rival contentions of both the parties:­“Now the complainant has failed to file any document in support of this application to show an increase in the earning capacity of the respondent or an increase in her expenditure. Similarly, the respondent has also failed to place on record any document to show his present earnings. However, this court cannot be oblivious to the realities prevailing in the society and inflation is one such reality. Cost of living has indeed gone up since 2008 and the living standing which could be maintained with Rs.5,000/­ per month in 2008 cannot be maintained with the same amount four years later. Also it is to be kept in mind that unless any specific disability or peculiar circumstances exist, in the normal course of events, the earning capacity of an able bodied person would only increase with time (till of course he becomes physically weak or old). Therefore, an annual increase of 10% in the amount decided in 2008 is certainly warranted considering that the inflation rate varies between 6 to 11% in India as per government statics, which are anyways on the conservative side. Therefore, the application is allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to pay monthly maintenance to the complainant by enhancing it 10% for every year beginning from 2012 till today. It is clarified that only an increase of 10% is allowed per year. Say for instance in 2011 the JD paid Rs.5,000/­ so in 2012 he will pay Rs.5,000/­ + (10% of 5,000) = 5,500/­. Then in 2013 he will pay Rs.5,500/­ + (10% of 5,500) = 6,050/­ and then in 2014 he will pay Rs.6,655/­ and so forth.”
  9. 9. A bare reading of the above order shows that the appellant failed to file any document in the court of learned MM to show that there was an increase in the earning capacity of respondent or there was any increase in her expenditure. Learned MM took note of the practical realities prevailing in the society and taking note of the cost of living in the year 2008 and in the year 2012, was pleased to enhance the maintenance at reasonable rate payable to appellant. Learned MM has rightly observed in her order that inflation rate varies between 6 to 11% in India as per government statics. Therefore, the enhancement of maintenance @ 10% per year is fully justified. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  10. 10. The appellant herself is a well educated lady having post graduation degree i.e. MA, B. Ed. and LL.B. and is reported to be more qualified than the respondent. She can earn herself on her own. She is not supposed to sit idle at home and be parasite on the earnings of respondent.
  11. 11. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.03.15 passed by learned MM. The said order is based on sound reasoning. No ground for interference in the order of learned MM is made out. The appeal preferred by appellant lacks merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
  12. 12. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court today i.e 17.03.2017

(RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)

Addl. Sessions Judge­02
South­East, Saket Courts, New Delhi

source
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97277940/


*****************************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

Wife arrested 4 murdering mother in law HAS RIGHT 2 enter husband’s house on bail! Fate of Indian Men ! Delhi District court case !!

Wife accused & arrested along with her accomplices for murdering her own mother in law (husband’s elderly mother) applies for bail. Husband is visually impaired and is scraed of his life and that of his kids, so runs for injunction, restricting her from entering house. But husband is still given good advise on maintaining wife and sent away !!

image

Facts : “…..    2.3. The defendant had been conspiring to eliminate the mother of the plaintiff with an ulterior motive to grab the entire property along with the persons with whom she had been in constant touch. The defendant killed the mother of the plaintiff along with Azad, Parvinder, Jai Bhagwan and Pradeep on 11.08.2011. FIR no. 241/2011 was registered with PS Okhla under Section 302/394/411/201/120B/34 IPC was registered against the defendant and Azad, Parvinder, Jai Bhagwan and Pradeep for committing murder of the mother of plaintiff. The police had filed the charge sheet in the said case against the defendant and the said accused persons and charges under Section 203/201/120B/34 IPC have been framed against the defendant and the said accused persons vide order dated 19.02.2013 by the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna, ld. ASJ, Saket Court finding a prima facie case against the defendant and other accused persons. The defendant was arrested on 20.08.2011 in the said FIR and had remained in custody so far. ….”

Further facts : “…. . However, the defendant’s bail application has been allowed by the Court of Sh. Lokesh Sharma, ld. ASJ, Saket Court, New Delhi vide order dated 29.09.2015. …”

Husband’s fear : The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant will now make attempts to forcibly enter the house of the plaintiff and tried to live in the house forcibly thereby endangering the peace, security and life of the plaintiff and other family members including minor children. The plaintiff is filing petition for divorce separately. ….”

Decision : “….     11. Further, the plaintiff has sought the relief that defendant be restrained from claiming right of residence in any manner in the suit property which belongs to plaintiff. Clearly, the right of residence to a legally wedded wife has been provided under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is settled principle that there cannot be any injunction for restraining a person from claiming a legal or statutory right. Therefore, by way of injunction plaintiff cannot restrain his wife from claiming a legal right which has been provided under a special statute…..”

 

more at

 

#FakeGangRape case fails @ court. Victims NOT believable, Kept making improvements to their versions !!

#FakeGangRape case fails @ court. The court feels that the so called Victims are NOT believable & made improvements to their accusations! All accused are acquitted after a long # of years (almost 11 years) to reach the sessions court ! What about #fakeaccused’s dignity?

After a henous gang rape accusation, the so called victims come out and keep making embellishments and improvements. After some time, they claims that the police have implicated some other people and NOT the actual culprits!! However 23 prosecution witnesses are examnied and NONE of them implicate the (false) accused. The court also finds the testemony of some of the key witnesses and one of the so called victims, un reliable !! The Hon frees the (false) accused. But that leaves us with the BIG question as to (a) was there a Rape at all ? or is this a case of a completely #FAKERAPE like we hear often these days ?

Doubting the claims of the Prosecution witnesses and one of the victims, the court states “…I find myself in agreement with the submissions of Defence that there was no reason as to why the allegations of bribery and pressure were not brought out by them before Ld. Judge at Pilibhit who recorded their statement under Section 164 CrPC. This, to my mind, clearly indicates that plea of these witnesses of having been pressurised by concerned police officials of PS Madhotanda may be an afterthought and accordingly, their testimony cannot be said to be of ‘sterling’ quality and cannot be relied upon so as to convict the Accused persons on the basis thereof……”

The Hon court continues with many similar observations including “…From the testimony of PW­1 ‘MK’ it is also clear that the victim has given different versions regarding the number of assailants who allegedly came to their house on the night of incident in question. She also admitted that on 17­18.08.1998, the entire police staff of Madho Tanda was made to stand and she was asked to identify if anyone of them was involved in the incident. However, she could not pin point any assailant out of those officials. Though, the investigation is silent as to why a proper TIP was not conducted, yet it has been admitted by PW1 ‘MK’ that entire police staff of PS Madhotanda and other police officials of neighbouring police stations were made to stand and the victims were made to identify the assailants which they failed to do…..”

We are left with the very serious question as to “…What is happening to my beloved India ..”, and “..where will we end if FALSE RAPES” keep piling up

more at

NO RELIEF under DV act because this is a property dispute !! Delhi District court !!

Mother claims maintenance, compensation etc etc from Son and Daughter in law. She claims that she was “… subjected to ill treatment by the respondents causing physical, emotional and economic violence upon her….” However court notices that all complaints are regarding some property dispute and denies ANY relief. “….Hence, from the material on record it is quite apparent that the dispute is civil in nature pertaining to some property pursuant to which some quarrel between parties have occurred. From the evidence led, the complainant has failed to show the existence of a ‘domestic relationship’ since the dispute has arose. It is the complainant’s own case that prior to separation of family members, they were all peacefully residing as one unit. No instance of domestic violence committed during that time has been alleged. …”

While we pity hapless elders and mothers being thrown out of household, we are unable to digest misuse of DV act

Probably this is a good case where the “logic” / “ratio” can be used by husbands (please note this is a District court) . Please note that a “mother” may be judged differently from a “wife” when claims of DV are made !!

==================================

IN THE COURT OF MS. VIJETA SINGH RAWAT:
MM-03: (MAHILA COURT): SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC- 12/1/15

ID No. of the Case : 02406R0005422014

Chanda Begum
W/o Sh. Tofique Ahmad
R/o House No.F-526 (Old No.D-115),
Extn.-2, Gali No.1,
20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 …….Complainant

Versus

  1. Mohd. Sajid (Son), S/o Sh. Tofique Ahmad
    2.Sahista Begum (Daughter-in-law), W/o Mohd. Sajid
    Both r/o House No.F-526 (Old No.D-115),
    Extn.-2, Gali No.1,
    20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension,
    Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 …… Respondents

Date of institution of case : 10.01.2014
Date of Reserving order : 30.03.2016
Date of Order : 01.07.2016

JUDGMENT

1.The present complaint u/s. 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) has been instituted on 10.01.2014 by Chanda Begum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) against Mohd. Sajid (Son) and Sahista Begum (daughter-in-law) (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No.1 and 2) seeking following reliefs :-

a)Pass apposite protection orders as prayed in para No.5 of the petition.

b)To pay monthly monetary relief of Rs.7,000/- per month to the complainant towards maintenance.

c) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for her intolerable sufferings and mental agony.

d) To pay Rs.25,000/- towards expenses of said proceedings and other legal expenses incurred by the applicant/complainant under compelling circumstances;

e) Prohibiting the respondents from causing theft of electricity by putting wire or otherwise in the shop at the ground floor of the shared household in possession of the respondents and causing mental and economic losses and harassment to the complainant;

f) restraining the respondents from creating any third party interest in the portion of the shared household in their possession or encumbering the same;

g) pass such order or orders under provisions of this Act thereby protecting the applicant/complainant from domestic violence.

AVERMENTS

2.The brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the mother of respondent No.1 and mother-in-law of respondent No.2; that she is the owner of property No.F-526 (Old No.D-115, Extension No.2, Gali No.1, 20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044) which is the shared household; that complainant has five sons and her entire family which used to reside in the aforesaid property has now separated and two married sons live separately, one has expired but his widow and children are dependent upon complainant and one youngest son is also with the complainant; that respondents also have a separate accommodation but are forcibly retaining possession of one room at first floor and shop at ground floor; that husband of complainant is a rickshaw puller and to make both ends meet, the complainant needs the property in illegal possession of respondents. It is further alleged that due to the property being the bone of contention, the respondents have subjected complainant to domestic violence by way of physical assault and verbal abuses which have been complained against.

3.Notice of the complaint was issued to the respondent vide order dated 10.01.2014.

4.Respondent No.1 entered appearance on 24.04.2014 and reply on behalf of respondents was filed on 22.09.2014.

5.In the reply filed preliminary objection has been taken that no domestic relationship exists between parties and hence, no relief under this Act is maintainable. It has been denied that complainant has been subjected to ill treatment by the respondents causing physical, emotional and economic violence upon her. The ownership of property is disputed. However, possession as alleged is not denied by the respondents. It is also stated that the complainant does not meet maintenance from the respondents as she is drawing rental income of about Rs.21,000/- per month. It is also denied that widow of the deceased son alongwith her children are dependent upon the complainant as she is running a beauty parlour. It is denied that any protection order is required by the complainant as the parties are residing separately. Since, respondents did not appear, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2016.

EVIDENCE

6.Matter was then listed for ex-parte complainant evidence. By way of complainant evidence, the complainant examined herself as CW1 and relied upon affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with following documents :-

a)Ex.CW1/1 police complaint dated 23.08.2013 to SHO PS Jaitpur.

b)Ex.CW1/2 police complaint dated 23.08.2013 to the office of Head Enforcement.

c)Ex.CW1/3 complaint received at PS Jaitpur vide DD No.25B on 11.12.2013.

7.Witness was not cross-examined as respondent is ex-parte. Thereafter, complainant evidence was closed on the same date.

8.Final arguments were heard by this Court.

9.This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced by the complainant.

ISSUES

10.The issues which are required to be proved to entitle a relief under the Act are as under :-
A)Whether the complainant was having a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household?
B)Whether complainant was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent so as to qualify her to be an aggrieved person under the Act?
Further, since, we are dealing with a quasi criminal proceeding, the proof test required is of preponderance of probabilities.

ISSUE A

11.As per sec. 2(f), “”domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;”

The burden to prove issue (A) was upon the complainant. The complainant has averred in paragraph No.4 (e) of her complaint ‘that respondents despite having an alternate accommodation continued forcibly retaining in their possession one room at first floor and a shop at ground floor of the shared household despite repeated requests from the complainant to vacate the same.’ Further, the above is reiterated in paragraph No.6 of affidavit Ex.CW-1/A. Even in Ex.CW-1/3 there is a clear stipulation that respondents are residing at a rented accommodation and are forcibly retaining in their possession a room and a shop in the disputed property. The tenor of Ex.CW-1/2 and Ex.CW-1/3 is also to the effect that parties have a dispute regarding property No.F- 526 (Old No.D-115, Extension No.2, Gali No.1, 20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044). Hence, from the material on record it is quite apparent that the dispute is civil in nature pertaining to some property pursuant to which some quarrel between parties have occurred. From the evidence led, the complainant has failed to show the existence of a ‘domestic relationship’ since the dispute has arose. It is the complainant’s own case that prior to separation of family members, they were all peacefully residing as one unit. No instance of domestic violence committed during that time has been alleged. Hence, the issue is decided against the complainant. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

ISSUE B

  1. In view of finding of issue No.A, the present issue needs no consideration.

RELIEFS

13. In view of the findings on issue A, all reliefs are declined. Complaint is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be given Dasti to the parties.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

(Announced in the open Court on 01st July 2016)

(VIJETA SINGH RAWAT)

MM-03: (MAHILA COURT)

SED:SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI

01.07.2016

*****************************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


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
    *******************************************************************************