Deepak Bhushan Gupta vs Reshu Garg

V.K. Shali, J.—This is a Civil Miscellaneous Main petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 22,500/- per month to the respondent and her son apart from Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has fallen into grave error by directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 22,500/- per month to the respondent despite the fact that the petitioner is only employed in some private industry and was earning Rs. 5,200/- per month which has now been increased to Rs. 8,000/-. It has been submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the averments and the evidence which has been produced by the petitioner.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has taken the court through the impugned order and contended that keeping in view the status of the parties, the learned Family Judge has rightly fixed the maintenance @ Rs. 22,500/- per month.

I have carefully considered the submissions and have gone through the record. Before giving the reasons for dismissing the petition, it would be pertinent here to mention the brief facts of the case.

The present petitioner got married to the respondent on 10.2.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the wedlock, the petitioner and the respondent were blessed with a son on 26.10.2008. The respondent has taken the stand that her father had spent around Rs. 35 lacs at the time of marriage and gifted a Honda City car also. It was also stated by her that at the time of marriage, it was represented to the respondent and her family members that the petitioner was a man of means and his parents owned number of properties and the family income was approximately Rs. 5 lacs per month.

The petitioner had filed a petition for divorce against the respondent while as the respondent had claimed that the petitioner had, without any rhyme or reason withdrawn from the matrimonial company. The matrimonial home of the parties was F-169, Prashant Vihar, Delhi, where the petitioner along with the respondent was living on the first floor initially but after withdrawing from the company of the respondent, he started living on the ground floor along with his parents and sister. In the petition for divorce, the respondent herein filed an application claiming that she does not have an independent source of income and the present petitioner is not maintaining her and rather has chosen to file a petition for divorce. It is stated that she is entitled to interim maintenance and litigation expenses. She had claimed that the petitioner is a man of means inasmuch as the property No. F-169, Prashant Vihar, Delhi is owned by him along with his mother. There are number of other properties owned by either the petitioner or his parents. These properties were E-876, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi; T-4/50, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase-I and 2986/222, Chander Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. It was alleged that these properties have been let out and are fetching a rent of Rs. 85,000/, Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- per month respectively. On the basis of this, it was alleged by the respondent that she is entitled to interim maintenance @ Rs. 75,000/- per month apart from litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/-.

The petitioner herein filed his reply to the application and stated that he is earning only Rs. 5,200/- per month. In order to prove that he was earning only a sum of Rs. 5,200/- per month at the time of filing of the application, he produced a certificate purported to have been issued by M/s. Prateek Industries, his employer. The learned trial court, after examining the parties, prima facie observed that the certificate which is purported to have been produced by the present petitioner was a procured one inasmuch as this certificate had been issued by M/s. Prateek Industries which happen to be a tenant of his parents in respect of Trinagar property. It is also observed that a person whose parents are running industries and are having number of properties would hardly be working at a monthly salary of Rs. 5,200/-. It was observed by the trial court that the petitioner must be earning around Rs. 60,000/- per month by any modest calculation and on the basis of that yardstick, it fixed maintenance @ Rs. 22,500/- per month for the respondent and her son.

The petitioner had not disputed the factum of marriage, the factum of F-169, Prashant Vihar, Delhi, being matrimonial home or the fact that the respondent was without any independent source of income. If that be the situation, the respondent was admittedly entitled to be maintained by the petitioner as the petitioner had chosen to file a petition for divorce against her. The question which arises is regarding the quantum of maintenance for the respondent and for the son, who was born from the wedlock. The petitioner had also not denied the ownership of the properties, details of which were given hereinabove. On the contrary, it has transpired that property No. F-169, Prashant Vihar, Delhi, where the respondent was living was, in fact, a property which was originally owned by the petitioner and it was transferred to his mother after the marriage of the petitioner. This was somewhere around August, 2008 or so. Obviously, it gives an impression that the moment the relations between the petitioner and the respondent got strained; he took corrective steps to divest himself of the ownership of the property knowing that it may come handy in the hands of the respondent against him in the later years. I feel that this transfer of ownership of the property was done in favour of his mother by the petitioner with the intention to show that he is a man without ownership of any immovable property to defeat the claim of the respondent. The trial court has also not believed that he is employed and earning Rs. 5,200/- only. Even an unskilled worker would be earning around Rs. 5,200/- or more if he is paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act. A person whose parents are well to do in status and owner of number of immovable properties, their only son can hardly be believed to be employed at a monthly income of Rs. 5,200/-. The learned trial court has very reasonably fixed a modest sum of Rs. 22,500/- per month for the maintenance of the respondent and her child by observing that the income of the petitioner must be assumed to be approximately Rs. 60,000/-.

I do not find any illegality, infirmity or incorrectness either in analysis of the facts or in appreciation of the evidence prima facie for the purpose of granting maintenance to the respondent and her child. On the contrary, the impression which even this court gets from the record is that the entire exercise on the part of the petitioner is not only to ensure that the respondent does not get any maintenance but he also wants to get rid of her. I, therefore, feel that the order of maintenance passed by the court below does not call for any interference.

The another reason for not interfering with the impugned order is that after this order was passed, the petitioner had filed a review application before the court concerned and raised all these points afresh by urging that evidence has not been considered. The learned Principal Judge had passed a fresh order running into 23 pages dealing with all the submissions of the petitioner and refuted his application for review by observing that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that this order of rejection of review has not been challenged and even if the impugned order is set aside, still the order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the review application of the petitioner would stand in his way. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the totality of circumstances, I feel that there is no ground for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini granting interim maintenance @ Rs. 22,500/- per month to the respondent and her son. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.