Sunday, Apr 28, 2024

24x7 Free Helpline For Men +91-888-2-498-498

Share
whatsapp

Tags: Maintenance

Court Name : Bombay High Court

Law Point: Court cannot completely act on the basis of its own assumption and surmises while deciding maintenance to wife

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    
WRIT PETITION NO. 3553 OF 2018


Mr.Prakash Kumar Singhee …Petitioner
Versus
Ms.Amrapali Singhee …Respondent
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.459 OF 2017
Ms.Amrapali Singhee …Petitioner
Versus
Mr.Prakash Kumar Singhee …Respondent

Mrs.Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioner in WP No.3553 of 2018 and
for the Respondent in CP No.459 of 2017.
Mr.Abhijit Sarwate for the Respondent in WP No.3553 of 2018 and
for the Petitioner in CP No.459 of 2017.

CORAM : SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23rd MARCH 2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MAY 2018
JUDGMENT :­
1. The   present   Writ   Petition   is   filed   by   the   petitionerhusband,
challenging order passed by the Family Court, Pune below
Exh.20 in Petition B. No.2/2013, thereby directing the petitioner to
pay maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs to the wife under Section 20 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 from the
date of application till the decision of the petition.F
2. Contempt Petition No.459 of 2017 is taken out by the
wife alleging non­compliance of the said order passed by the Family
Court   and   praying   for   appropriate   directions   to   the   husband   to
comply with the said order.
3. The brief chronology of the facts leading to the filing of
present petitions is culled out below.
The   petitioner   and   respondent   were   married   on
11.07.1997 as per Hindu rites and Customs.   At the relevant time
the petitioner was living in Houston, Texas, USA and the parties
resided there till 2004.  Out of the said wedlock, two children were
born on 15.11.1998 and 20.01.2004.   At present the daughter is
studying in USA and the son is staying with the wife.
The   case   of   the   petitioner­husband   is   that   the
respondent­wife lost interest in married life and she took away the
children from their joint custody.  The respondent­wife instituted the
Petition B No.2/2013 invoking Section 34, 37(2), 38 and 39 of the
Specific   Relief   Act   before   the   Family   Court,   Pune.     In   the   said
proceedings, the respondent­wife prayed for a restrain order against
the   husband   removing   son   Aryaman   from   the   custody   of   the
petitioner­husband and also from meeting his son Aryaman out of
Pune.     Exh.5   came   to   be   filed   in   the   said   Court   praying   for
temporary injunction and the Family Court­I, Pune on 24.01.2013
issued   temporary   injunction   against   husband   directing   not   to
remove child from the custody of the wife until further orders.
4. The respondent­wife preferred an application  Exh­20 in
the said petition under Section 20 of the Protection of Domestic
Violence Act praying for monetary relief of Rs.5 lakhs per month
and for reimbursement of school fees of son Aryaman to the tune of
Rs.50,000/­.  In the said application preferred under Section 20 of
the Domestic Violence Act, the wife alleged that she is entitled for
maintenance of Rs.5 lakhs per month by taking into consideration
the life style to which she is accustomed to and in the backdrop of
the earning capacity of the husband.  The said application came to
be   opposed   by   the   petitioner   by   filing   a   reply   wherein   it   was
contended that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act
cannot be extended to a woman who earns tax free dividend of Rs.4
lakhs per annum and who has investment in her bank to fetch her
interest of around 70 thousand per annum.   In the said reply the
petitioner­husband categorically stated that he was catering to the
needs   of   the   wife   and   children   and   always   arranging   for   their
lodging and  boarding and all other miscellaneous expenses.
5. On consideration of the said application, the impugned
order came to be passed by the Family Court.   The Judge Family
Court dealt with the objection that the application under Section 20
of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be instituted in the proceedings
filed under the Specific Relief Act and the Court also recorded the
submission of the petitioner that the preliminary requirement of
Domestic Violence has not been proved and in such circumstances
such an application cannot be entertained.
6. The  impugned   order  proceeds  on   a  footing   that  the
petitioner   is   a   President   of   “Shiv   Vani   Oil   and   Gas   Exploration
Services Limited” and draws a salary of Rs.15 lakhs per month with
perks worth Rs. 5 lakh.  The Court observe that the husband is  in
charge   of   the   said   company   but   he   has   failed   to   produce   any
documents reflecting his income, but the  wife  had produced on
record copy of her bank statement.   The Family Court would take
note of the bank statement as well as Income Tax returns of the wife
for the year 2013­2014, 2014­2015, 2015­2016 and 2016­2017. The
Court   considered   the   income   shown   as   against   these   years   and
recorded a finding that the income of the wife for the year 2015­
2016   is   Rs.17,46,878/­   whereas   for   the   year   2016­2017   it   is
reflected   as   zero.     The   Court   did   not   find   favour   with   the
explanation tendered by the wife that her mother is joint holder of
the account where huge amount has been credited and that she
deals in stock broking and therefore the entries are reflected in her
account.  The Court recorded, a finding that the said explanation is
not acceptable at all.   However, taking into consideration the fact
that it is responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife and
children, the Court awarded  maintenance to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs
per month, in the backdrop of the earning capacity of the husband
as per the contention of the wife.
7. In support of the petitioner learned counsel Mrs.Seema
Sarnaik would submit that the Family Court has failed to take into
consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and that the order
passed   by  the  Trial   Court   is  prima  facie  erroneous.     She   would
submit that by virtue of Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act,
while disposing of an application Sub­Section­1 of Section­12 the
Magistrate   may   direct   payment   of   monetary   relief   to   meet   the
expenses incurred and loss suffered by the “aggrieved person” as a
result of Domestic Violence. Advocate Mrs.Sarnaik would submit
that the prerequisite of the grant of such a relief is an application
preferred   under   Section­12   of   the   said   Act   by   the   “aggrieved
person”.   She would invite attention of the Court to the definite
meaning assigned to the term “aggrieved person” under Section2(a)
of the Act to mean a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship   with   the   respondent   and   who   alleges   to   have   been
subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.  She
would   also   submit   that   the   domestic   violence   has   a   specific
meaning  assigned to in Section­3 of the Act and would include any
Act,   omission   or   commission   or   conduct   of   the   respondent   as
specified in Clause (a) to (d) of Section­3.  She would submit that
the   application   is   devoid   of   such   pleadings   attributing   domestic
violence and thus in absence of domestic violence being attributed
and     demonstrated,   an   application   under   Section­12   cannot   be
entertained and no relief can be granted under Section­20 of the
said Act in the nature of the monetary relief.  She would also submit
that the proceedings were filed by the wife under the provisions of
the   Specific   Relief   Act   seeking   a   restrain   order   and   in   that
proceedings the application Exh.­20 came to be filed which is not
maintainable. She  would also assail  the  order impugned on  the
ground that the Family Court has not taken into consideration the
earnings of the husband.  
The   petitioner   has   tendered   an   affidavit   before   this
Court on 19th  March 2018, bringing on record certain documents
which include an order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 28th
July 2017 in a Company Petition by which the Company of the
petitioner is placed under the control of the Official Liquidator in
the form of provisional liquidator and direction is issued to the
company and its directors from alienating, encumbering and parting
with the possession of the assets of the company without the leave
of the Court.  According to Mrs.Sarnaik the company “Shiv Vani Oil
and Gas Exploration Services Limited” is thus under liquidation and
in these circumstances it is difficult for the petitioner to pay the
amount of maintenance as ordered by this Court.   The affidavit
further   proceeds   to   state   that   the   petitioner   is   catering   to   the
Educational expenses of the daughter who is studying in USA by
obtain a loan and he is also bearing the educational expenses of his
son who is studying in standard VIII.
8. Per   contra   learned   counsel   Advocate   Shri.Sarwate
appearing for respondent­wife would invite attention of this Hon’ble
Court to the application filed by his client under order 21 Rule 41 of
the Civil Procedure Code praying for disclosure of the details of the
assets of the judgment debtor in light of the order passed by the
Family Court.   He would submit that on 30.01.2018 the Family
Court has passed the following order on Exh.5.
“Perused   application.     No   say   filed   by   J.D.   Perused
authority   relied   by   D.H.D.H.   Wants   to   JD   should
disclose his assets which are required for the execution
of decree as DH is not aware of his assets J.D. Did not
file Say.   As per O.21, R.41 of the CPC, JD can be
directed to disclose his assets.   It is necessary to execute
the decree.   Hence, JD is directed to give details of
assets   as   mentioned   in   para   (4)(a)   to   (z)   of   the
application on the next date.”
9. He   would   further   invite   attention   of   this   Court   to
subsequent order passed by 07.03.2018 by the Family Court, Pune
to the following effect :­
“Perused application.   Heard Ld.   Advocate for  DH.
Today JD is present before the court but he did not
comply the order of the court below Exh.5.  So also JD
did not deposit any decretal amount in court.  There is
no stay to the proceedings. DH pressed for sending the
JD to jail.  However, in my opinion last opportunity is
to be given to the JD.  Hence JD is directed to deposit
25%   of   decretal   amount   in   court   on   or   before
20.03.2018 and if he fails, he will be sent to jail.  JD to
note and strictly comply the order.
10. Learned  counsel  Shri.Sarwate  would submit that  the
impugned order passed by the Family Court needs to be upheld
since it is based on the earning capacity of the husband and since
the   wife   is   entitled   to   maintain   same   standard   of   living   as   the
husband, and no fault can be found with the impugned order.  He
would submit that the wife is not having any source of livelihood
and as such the award of maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs is just and
proper to meet the requirements of the wife.  Advocate Mr.Sarwate
would also submit that he is constrained to file Contempt Petition
No.459 of 2017 since the husband has failed to act in terms of the
impugned order, thereby driving the wife to a stage of destitution.  
11. With   the   assistance   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the
parties   I   have   perused   the   material   placed   on   record   and   also
perused the impugned order.  The impugned order is passed on an
application filed by the wife invoking Section­20 of the Domestic
Violence in Petition No.B­2/2013 filed by the wife seeking a relief
under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.  Though Mrs.Sarnaik
had   vehemently   argued   on   the   maintainability   of   the   said
application, on perusal of the provisions of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is apparent that the Act has
been   enacted   to   provide   more   effective   protection   of   rights   of
women guaranteed under the Constitution of India, being victims of
violence  of any  kind  occurring  in  the  family and the  provisions
therein would have to be construed in the backdrop of the object
with   which   the   statute   is   enacted.     Section­26   of   the   said   Act
provides for relief in other suits and legal proceedings.   The said
section contemplates that any relief available under Section 18, 19,
20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before
the Civil Court, Family Court and a Criminal Court affecting the
aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceedings was
initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
Sub­section­2 of Section­26 further provides that any
such relief may be sought for in addition to and along with any
other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal
proceedings before a Civil or Criminal Court. Thus, by virtue of the
Section­26, any relief available under the Domestic Violence Act can
also  be  sought  in  any  legal  proceedings before  any  Civil  Court,
Family   Court   or   Criminal   Court.     The   wife   had   instituted
proceedings under the Specific Relief Act before the Family Court,
Pune and the said proceedings are pending.   She filed application
Exh.20 in that petition namely petition B­2/2013 and sought to
relief of grant of maintenance or the monetary relief contemplated
under Section­20 of the said Act.
In   light   of   Section­26   of   the   Domestic   Violence   Act,
2005, the objection raised by Mrs.Sarnaik cannot be entertained. 
However, at the same time it is to be noted that the
reliefs   mentioned   under   Section   12   are   available   to   “Aggrieved
person” and the reliefs which may be availed by invoking Section
17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are dependent on one important aspect
namely the said relief is available to an “aggrieved person” who
alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the
respondent.  The object of D.V. Act 2005, being to protect the rights
of   women   who   are   offended   by   the   act   of   domestic   violence
committed by the respondent which may include any adult male
person   or   with   whom   the   aggrieved   person   is   in   domestic
relationship.  The term Domestic Violence has been given a specific
connotation under Section 3 of the Act and any act, omission and
commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic
violence in case it :­
(a) harms   or   injuries   or   endangers   the   health,
safety,   life,   limp   or   well­being,   whether   mental   or
physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and
includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal
and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses,   harms,   injures   or   endangers   the
aggrieved person with  a view  to  coerce her  or  any
other person related to her to meet any lawful demand
for any dowry or other property or valuable security;
or
(c) has   the   effect   of   threatening   the   aggrieved
person or any person related to her by any conduct
mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise   injuries   or   causes   harm,   whether
physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. 
12. Thus, in order to claim relief under Section­12 of the
Act which permits an “aggrieved person” to present an application
to the magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act, levelling
the allegations of Domestic Violence.  Thus, the reliefs contemplated
under the Act are thus available to an aggrieved person who alleges
that she is or has been in domestic relationship with the respondent
and   was   subjected   to   any   Act   of   Domestic   Violence   by   the
respondent.     Allegation   about   the   commission   of   a   Domestic
Violence Act is prerequisite for the magistrate or Court of competent
jurisdiction   to   exercise   the   powers   under   the   Protection   from
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and grant of any reliefs
contemplated under the Act.
13. Perusal  of  the  application  filed by the  wife  claiming
maintenance would reveal that apart from making the allegations
that the husband is well off and earning a huge amount and the wife
is left with no source of livelihood, not a single averment has been
made as to any act of domestic violence which would have brought
the applicant wife under the category of “aggrieved person” who
would have been entitled for the benefits flowing under Section­12
including to the benefits under Section­20 of the D.V. Act 2005. The
applicant in the application preferred on 16th February 2013 do not
give a single instance of domestic violence and the application has
been simply preferred under the caption as an application under
Section­20 of the D.V. Act 2005 praying for following reliefs.
“(a) The   maintenance   or   the   monetary   reliefs
provided   U/sec.20   of   the   Domestic   Violence   Act   be
granted.
(b) Monetary relief of Rs.5 lac per month be granted
from the date of this Application.
(c) Reimbursement of School Fee for son Aryamaan
be granted to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.50,000/­
incurred as on today.
(d) The Respondent be called upon to produce his
bank statements from all the banks for the last 3 years
more specially from Jan 1, 2010.”
(e) Any other just and equitable order may kindly
be passed.”
14. Learned   counsel   Mrs.Sarnaik   is   perfectly   justified   in
submitting that the provisions under the said enactment cannot be
invoked unless the party alleges an act of domestic violence and
approach   the   Court   in   the   capacity   as   an   “aggrieved   person”.
Though the application filed by the applicant can be entertained in
the   pending   proceedings   under   the   Specific   Relief   Act,   while
entertaining an application which is filed Sub­section­1 of Section12,
it is imperative that the person approaching the Court is an
“aggrieved  person”.     Though   the   Family  Court  in   the   impugned
order   has   noted   the   submissions   advanced   on   behalf   of   the
petitioner­husband that the preliminary requirement of the domestic
violence   has   not   been   proved   by   the   petitioner   and   therefore
application is not maintainable, the Family Court did not pay any
heed to the said submission and rather proceeded to decide the
matter on its own merits.  The Court has merely noted that as per
provision of Section­20 of the D.V. Act aggrieved by had claimed
monetary relief for herself and her children however, a whether the
applicant is an “aggrieved person” has not at all been considered by
the Family Court.  Though the Act of Domestic Violence would be
established after rendering evidence before the Court, at least the
Court prima facie must be satisfied that the person approaching is as
an “aggrieved person”.  It is not every person who can invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court under the 2005 Act, simply for claiming
maintenance, as the purpose of the enactment is to protect rights of
women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the
family.   The Court has refused to consider the said aspect of the
matter.
15. The   impugned   order   takes   into   consideration   the
potential of the husband to earn the amount as claimed by the wife
and concludes that he is fetching a salary of Rs.15 lakhs and perks
of Rs.5 lakhs per month.  Though the Court expressed doubt with
the  wife’s  earning and  has recorded that the  wife  has filed her
Income Tax return showing her income from 2014 to 2017 and the
Court has recorded, that the explanation given the wife that per year
2016­2017 her income is zero, is unacceptable.  The Family Court
has also perused the bank statement of the wife and has recorded
that the there are various deposits to her account and the Court has
found   the   explanation   offered   by   the   wife   that   her   mother   is
carrying out the business of stock broking from her account to be
evasive.  The Court has also noted that though the contention of the
wife   is   that   she   is   not   doing   any   business   but   the   documents
reflected that she had huge investments and she has income from
shares.     However,   considering   the   moral   responsibility   of   the
husband to maintain the wife and children, the Court has arrived at
conclusion that the petitioner must pay maintenance to the wife.
16. The approach of the Family Court is grossly erroneous.

The amount of maintenance has to be fixed by striking a balance
between the earning capacity of the husband and need of the wife
and   the   children.     No   doubt   a   husband   is   under   obligation   to
maintain his spouse and children, however, as regards the quantum
of maintenance, the Court will have  to award the  said amount,
based on the material placed before it and though some guess work
is permissible, the Court cannot completely act on the basis of its
own assumption and surmises.

 

Learned   Counsel   Mrs.Sarnaik   has   placed   before   this
Court   an   order   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   in   a   company   petition
reflecting   that   the   “Shiv   Vani   Oil   and   Gas   Exploration   Services
Limited” of which the petitioner is owner has gone into liquidation
and   he   has   resigned   from   the   said   company   by   tendering   his
resignation on 01.06.2013.  The aspect is important factor which is
to be  considered in  order  to have  an estimation of  the  earning
capacity of the husband, since the specific contention of the wife is
that he is also the owner of other subsidiary companies.  That may
be true, however, there should be some material placed before the
Court to demonstrate that he is also stake holder in some other
companies.     The   petitioner   is   catering   to   the   education   of   the
children and he expresses no difficultly to continue to do so.   He
finances the daughter, who is taking education in USA and he is also
catering to the need of the other child.  It is no doubt true that wife
is entitled for dignified amount so as to maintain herself  according
to the standards which she is accustomed to.  The parties appear to
be belonging to affluent background and she is entitled for same
standard of living as the husband.  What is the present capacity and
status of the husband at the time of passing of the order granting
award of maintenance must be looked into.   The application was
filed in the year 2013 whereas the impugned order is passed in 2017
and several events occurred in between two dates, which must be
necessarily   weighed   by   the   Court   while   deciding   the   said
application.   This is however not done by the Family Court, Pune
and it has awarded an amount of Rs.2 lakhs per month to the
petitioner­wife without even bothering to take into consideration
whether the wife is an “aggrieved person”.  In the application the
wife   has   prayed   for   an   amount   of   Rs.5   lakhs   for   herself   and
reimbursement   of   school   fee   of   her   son.     The   husband   has
undertaken   that  he  would  continue   to  pay  the   fees  of   the   son.
However, as far as the maintenance of the wife is concerned the
Family Court has grossly erred in granting the said amount without
consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter as highlighted
above.   The said order thus cannot be sustained and the matter
needs   to   be   remanded   back   to   the   Family   Court   for   due
consideration in light of the observations made above.   Both the
parties   are   permitted   to   tender   appropriate   material   before   the
Family Court so as to justify the claim of the maintenance by wife
and the capability of the husband to pay such maintenance.  
However,   it   is   noted   though   the   order   is   passed   on
23.01.2017 directing the husband to pay the maintenance amount
from the date of application, the husband has not been paid any
amount till date.   In  the  execution  proceedings filed before the
Family Court, the Family Court has already issued a direction of
deposit   25%   of   decretal   amount   in   the   Court   and   or   before
20.03.2018 otherwise the husband is directed to be sent to jail.  This
order was passed on 17.02.2018.  The husband has failed to deposit
any amount in terms of the order passed by Family Court by the
impugned order.  
Since this Court is of the opinion the matter needs to be
remanded so as to the decide the entitlement of maintenance of the
wife   under   Section­20   of   the   D.V.Act,   the   petitioner­husband   is
directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25% of the amount of the
maintenance in terms of the directions of Judge family Court, by
calculating   the   said   amount   from   the   date   of   the   order   i.e.
23.01.2017. The said amount is directed to be deposited before the
Family Court within a period four weeks from date of this order.
The Family Court would then reconsider the matter, on such deposit
being made by the petitioner­husband and would also consider the
application preferred by the wife for withdrawal of such amount.
17. The   Family   Court   is   directed   to   reconsider   the
application for maintenance within a period of three months from
the date of the deposit of the amount by the petitioner­husband in
the Family Court.  The said amount would be then adjusted towards
the quantum of maintenance which the family Court would award
on   its   reconsideration.   During   the   pendency   of   the   proceedings
before   the   Family   Court   on   its   remand,   the   petitioner­husband
would pay an amount of Rs.25,000/­ per month to the wife towards
her maintenance, till the Family Court decides the mater.     The
petitioner is also directed to bear the educational expenses of the
son and would commit no default in payment of his school fees.  
Writ Petition is partly allowed.  Impugned order dated
23.01.2017 passed by Family Court, Pune is quashed and set aside.
Matter is remanded to Family Court, Pune for reconsideration and
the same is directed to be decided in three months.
(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.)

Quick Links
Tags
IPC 376
406
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
Stay by Appellate Court
HMA-24
498a
IPC 497
clubbing all cases in single court
322
CrPC 319
CrPC 468
No relief to people who come to courts with unclean hands
Judicial Custody
CrPC 128
No neighbor examined.
IPC 302
Cooling period
Maintenance dismissed
Passport
156(3)
CrPC 340 - Perjury
IPC 406
504
Section 376
Dowry
Dowry Death
HMA 25
Divorce
unclean hands
IndianPenalCode
306
No Independent witness examined
Vague Allegations
Caveat
323
Quashing 498a
Maintenance
CrPC 313
IPC 506
prohibition
Electronic evidence
Bail
CrPC 294
CrPC 161
NCRB
Child Custody
IPC 334
IPC 354
Diet Money
CrPC 126
No Proper Source of funds of dowry.
False affidavit
Police Custody
False Case
RCR
DV-Act
Passport
IPC 375
Car to husband
CrPC 340
IPC 304
HMA
IPC 323
41a
Legal Terrorism
CrPC 127
EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
No maintenance to deserting wife
FIR
IPC
False Allegations
Wife earning
RTI
Mutual Consent Divorce
CrPC 41
Dowry Misuse
DP Act
Quash

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law related blogs and websites. We, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, LawOctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc. Many of the judgements are also taken from the websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Copyright © 2019-20 SIF Chandigarh. All Rights Reserved