BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT, LD. M.P.

SINGH
FAMILY COURT, TIS HAZARI COURT (CENTRAL) DELHI

MT 5861547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SUMAN CHAWLA ...PETITIONER

VERSUS
BALDEV CHAWLA ... RESPONDENT

INDEX

[Link]. PARTICULARS Pg. No.

1. Written Submission filed by the Petitioner.

2. Document-1- True Copy of Order dated 30.03.2015 by

Family Court, Tis Hazari in the matter titled Suman Chawala
v. Baldev Chawala in MT 1309/2014

3. Document-2- True Copy of Order Dated 17.05.2013 by

Additional Judge-12 Seema Maini (Central) Delhi District
Court in HMA Petition 350 of 2012

4. Document-3-True Copy of Cross-Examination order of

Respondent dated 20.05.2023 in MT 5861547 OF 2016.

5. Document-4-True Copy of Cross-Examination order of

Respondent dated 04.06.2024 passed in MT 5861547 OF
2016.

6. Document-5- True copy of Respondent’s Income Tax Returns

for assessment year 2020-2021 in Income Affidavit filed by
the Respondent before this Hon’ble Court under Index dated
02.12.2021 from Pages 91 to 93.
7. Document-6- True copy of the relevant page of the statement
of account of HDFC account filed by the Respondent with his
Income Affidavit under Index dated 02.12.2021 at Page 39-
53.

8. Document-7- True copy of Balance Sheet for year ended

31.03.2019 of M/s Mayur Hybrid Seeds Co filed by the
Respondent with his Income Affidavit under Index dated
02.12.2021 at Page 93.

9. Document-8-True copy of Cross-Examination order of

Respondent dated 15.04.2023 in MT 5861547 OF 2016.

10. Document-9- True copy of Income Affidavit filed by the

Respondent before this Hon’ble Court under Index dated
02.12.2021.

11. Document-10-True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate

Value of property of Respondent at Jharoda.

12. Document-11- True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate

Value of property of Respondent at Hardev Nagar.

13. Document-12- True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate

Value of property of Respondent at AzadPur.

14. Document-13- True copy of Cross-Examination order of

Respondent dated 8.04.2022 in MT 5861547 OF 2016.
Document-14- True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate
15. Value of property of Respondent at Sarai Rohilla.

16. Document-15- True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate

Value of property of Respondent at Godown in Hirankari.

17. Document-16- True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate

Value of property of Lusa Tower.

18. Document-17- (RW-1/P-6)-True printout of Screenshot of

Respondent’s business, Mayur Hybrid Seeds Co’s Facebook
Page Profile.
 Also Exhibited in RW-1/P-6 during Cross-Examination of
Respondent dated 04.06.2024.

19. Document-18-True printout of Screenshot to indicate the

price of a Shih Tzu dog in India and the expenses.
Document-19-(RW-1/P-4)-True printout of Screenshot of
20. Respondent’s Facebook post dated 21.11.2023 with the
caption “Naya mehmaan peyara sa” Also Exhibited in RW-
1/P-4 from order Cross-Examination of Respondent dated
04.06.2024

21. Document-20 (Colly) True printout of Screenshot to indicate

revenue generated through a cow and price of the same.

22. Document-21-(RW-1/P-5(Colly)-True printout of

Screenshot of Respondent’s Facebook Post dated to indicate
the phone he’s using. Also Exhibited in RW-1/P-5 (Colly) in
order Cross-Examination dated 04.06.2024

23. Document-22 Exhibited in RW-1/P-3)- -( True printout of

Screenshot of Respondent’s Profile Picture dated 09.11.2019
Exhibited in RW-1/P-3 in Cross-Examination dated
04.06.2024

24. Document-23-True printout of Screenshot of link to indicate

cost of ray-ban.

25. Document-24-True printout of Times of India newspaper

article titled “TVS Jupiter Grande launched with more
features, indicating price of the same starts at Rs 55,936” dated
04.10.2018.

26. Document-25- (Exhibited in RW-1/P-2)- True printout of

Screenshot of Respondent’s Business Mayur Hybrid Seeds
and Co’s Trademark No. 4565061. Also exhibited as RW-1/P-
2.

27. Document-26- (Exhibited in RW-1/P-1)- True copy of

Linkedin Profile of the Respondent’s daughter also exhibited
as RW-1/P-1.
 28. Document-27 (Colly)-True printout of Order dated
17.05.2023 in Cont Cas(C) 872 of 2021 along with the
Petition.

THROUGH
AARZOO ANEJA
D/2485/2016
Counsel for the Petitioner
E-345, Greater Kailash-II,
New Delhi-110048
+91 9540129000
[Link]@[Link]

Date:12.07.2024
Place: New Delhi
 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT, LD. M.P. SINGH
FAMILY COURT, TIS HAZARI COURT (CENTRAL) DELHI

MT 5861547 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SUMAN CHAWLA ...PETITIONER

VERSUS
BALDEV CHAWLA ... RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Written Submissions is being filed on behalf of Mrs. Suman Chawla,
the Petitioner herein.

2. That the Petitioner and the Respondent solemnized their union on 25.11.2001.
Throughout her marriage with the Respondent, she has been a doting wife who took
care of the marital home, her husband, her mother-in-law and their two children out of
the said wedlock. Yet, as time passed, she was “rewarded” with emotional, physical,
mental and financial abuse by the hands of the Respondent. To the point where the
Respondent seized her jewelry, her personal identification documents and even her
educational qualification documents. His acts engendered her pervasive sense of
insecurity and diminished her sense of personal safety within the marital domicile. On
05.01.2014, the Petitioner mustered up the courage to file an FIR to protect herself and
separate herself from the Respondent.

3. It is submitted that, through this Maintenance Application No. 1309 of 2014 filed on
14.10.2014, the Petitioner requests monthly maintenance from her separated husband
for her financial sustenance. The Petitioner has filed for Maintenance under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a safeguard against the impoverishment of
the abused spouse, ensuring that she has access to basic necessities and a dignified
standard of living.

4. This Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 30.03.2015, passed an interim Order directed the
Respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. date of the Application
i.e. from 14.10.2014. This Order was passed in pursuance of Order dated 17.05.2013
passed in HMA No. 350 of 2012.
5. That the Hon'ble Court has listed the matter for final arguments on 12.07.2024.

QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED:

I. WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS THAT QUALIFY A WOMAN FOR

MAINTENANCE?

II. WHETHER RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS SUFFICIENT MEANS?

HAS HE DISCLOSED HIS TRUE INCOME?

III. CAN THIS HON’BLE COURT DELVE INTO THE TRUE INCOME OF
A PERSON IF THE SAME IS NOT DISCLOSED? WHAT ARE THE
FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR SUCH
DETERMINATION?

IV. ONCE THE TRUE INCOME IS DISTRIBUTED, WHAT ARE THE

GUIDELINES THAT A FAMILY COURT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE A FAIR MAINTENANCE AMOUNT?

V. IS THE PETITIONER WIFE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN HERSELF?

VI. CAN THE RESPONDENT BE FINED FOR NOT PAYING

MAINTENANCE?
 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

I. WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS THAT QUALIFY A WOMAN FOR

MAINTENANCE?

1. According to Section 125(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure (“CRPC”),“If any

person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, unable to
maintain herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or
refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife
or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and
to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

2. Therefore, the qualifying factors are:

a. A person having sufficient means
b. Person Neglects, or Refuses to Maintain his Wife
c. Wife is Unable to Maintain herself
II. WHETHER RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS SUFFICIENT MEANS? HAS HE
DISCLOSED HIS TRUE INCOME?

3. It is submitted that the Respondent has “sufficient means” and is actively refusing to
maintain the Petitioner, his wife. It is submitted that the Respondent’s income statement
does not depict the true figure of earnings.

4. It is a well settled principle of law that the income tax returns (ITR) do not reflect the
actual income of a party and cannot be an accurate guide to determine income of parties
in matrimonial cases. The Supreme Court in Supreme Court in Kiran Tomar and ors
vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 539

10 “… Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial

conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is
for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the
evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent
so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate
with the status to which they were accustomed during the time
when they were staying together

5. It is submitted that the claim of the Respondent is that his current income and income
for the financial years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 is Rs. 30,000-35,000, (Ref:
Respondent’s Cross-examination dated 20.05.2023 and 04.06.2024) is deceptive,
erroneous, and false.

6. In order to hide his income, and to evade making payment of maintenance to his wife,
the Respondent filed a false computation of ITR before the Trial Court for assessment
year 2020-2021. (Ref: Pg. 91-93 of Documents filed with his Income Affidavit filed
under Index dated 02.12.2021) In the same, the Respondent has disclosed only 1
account i.e. Punjab National Bank Account (1845002100038716) As per the said
computation of ITR, his income in the year 2019-2020 was Rs.3,32,810/-

7. The Respondent has not disclosed his other Bank Accounts details in computation of
ITR for assessment year 2020-2021 which he admittedly has:

a. HDFC Account (50200045113952) which was operational in 2019-2021.

(Ref: Pg. 39-53 of Documents filed with his Income Affidavit filed
under Index dated 02.12.2021)
 b. Similarly, the Respondent has another HDFC Account (67230) branch
Aadarsh Nagar in his name. It was operational in 2019. The same is
mentioned in his balance sheet for the year ended 31.03.2019. (Ref:
Respondent’s Cross-examination dated 20.05.2023) (Ref: Pg. 93 of
Documents filed with his Income Affidavit filed under Index dated
02.12.2021)

c. Similarly, Respondent has another SBI Bank Account (10457275245) at

Nirankari Colony, Delhi, which was initially in the name of his father.
Now it is a joint account in the name of his mother and him. (Ref:
Respondent’s Cross-examination dated 20.05.2023)

8. The CBDT vide Notification No. 41/2015, Dated-15th day of April, 2015 has mandated
to disclose all active bank accounts while filing of ITR. However, the Respondent has
not disclosed all his bank accounts in his ITR for assessment year 2020-2021 in
violation of Under-Reporting and Misreporting of Income under Section 270 A of the
Income Tax Act. The Petitioner reserves her right to initiate appropriate proceedings
under the Income Tax Act against the Respondent.

9. The Respondent during his cross-examination was asked to furnish the last 3-year bank
statement of the above accounts. He had agreed to furnish the same. He also agreed and
undertook to submit his ITR for the assessment year 2021-2022 on the next date of
hearing. The cross only concluded on 04.06.2024. However, despite opportunities, the
Respondent has failed to place the said documents on record.

10. That, within the filing of Income Tax Return, the Respondent evidence has an
additional layer of concealment, of filing old and outdated Income Tax Returns. That
the Respondent has placed on record his Income Tax Returns for the previous
assessment years i.e. 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021. He has not filed Income Tax
Returns for the financial years i.e. 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024 despite being
given multiple opportunities. It is henceforth submitted that the income placed on
record shows an inaccurate view of the true income.

11. That the Respondent has failed to produce the latest financial information. In the year
2024, the most accurate depiction of the true income would be presented in the previous
year 2023-2024. Vide order dated 15.04.2023, the court directed the Respondent to
place on record the last 3 years bank statements of accounts and ITRs, which even after
requested for a myriad of times, has been conveniently omitted from the evidentiary
record. Thus, establishing that the Respondent is not coming up with full truth with
 respect to his economic capacity. More importantly, the Respondent has yet again
willfully violated order passed by this Hon’ble Court.

12. In Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Seema Yadav, MAT. APP. (F.C.) 86/2021 and CM
Appls. 30130-30131/2021 Delhi High Court has held:
26. the Appellant had only filed the ITR of the year 2014-15 [3 years
prior to date of filing of Maintenance Application] of the respondent,
which was not looked into by the Family Court, as it was observed by the
court that the current financial position of the parties is required to be
seen for the determination of maintenance amount. Upon perusal of
the Family Court’s decision, it was held that “We [Delhi High Court] do
not find anything wrong in this approach of the Family Court,
particularly when the Appellant did not produce any material to show
that the Respondent was gainfully employed during the period for which
she was claiming maintenance.
13. In Rebala Sudhir Reddy Vs. State & Anr CA No.151 of 2020 CNR No.
DLSE01-003361-2020 South East District Court Saket it was held:

22. Further, as rightly pointed out by Ld. counsel for respondent/wife,

the appellant/husband appears to have manufactured his bank statement
by conveniently hiding certain entries (in the said statement) for the
reasons best known to him. A perusal of the account statement of A/c
bearing No. 0370102000005210 of IDBI Bank Ltd, Chennai, for the
period 2018 (of the appellant/husband) reveals that certain entries (i.e.
Sr. No.27, 29, 32, 37, 38, 43, 48 and so on and so forth) have been
concealed and no explanation for such concealment is forthcoming on
the part of appellant/husband. It appears that the statement placed on
record is not a bank record and rather one having created by appellant
to hide his actual income. It is pertinent to mention here that along with
Written submissions, Ld counsel for appellant/husband also filed the
bank statement of the appellant of the said account. However, again for
the reasons best known to the appellant, the said statement was filed for
the period 03.01.2019 onwards and former opted not to file the bank
statement for the period 2018 and thereby leaving no doubt that he is
not coming up with full truth with respect to his economic capacity.

14. It is a well settled principle of law that in Maintenance Proceedings, if a Husband

refuses to depict his true financial position, adverse inference shall be taken in support
 of the income proposed by his wife. And that a husband cannot claim “insufficient
income in order to discharge his liability towards his wife.

15. In Rebala Sudhir Reddy vs State and anr CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 of 2020
CNR No. DLSE01-003361-2020, South East Delhi Court Saket, held while citing
Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr AIR 2021 SC 569:

12. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of

earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children and cannot
contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his
family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj
v Shila Rani Chander Prakash. The onus is on the husband to
establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to
show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal
obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not
disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may
be drawn by the Court.

In Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Seema Yadav MAT. APP. (F.C.)

86/2021 and CM Appls. 30130-30131/2021 Delhi High Court it was
observed that A bare perusal of the list of immovable properties clearly
shows the appellant to be a man with substantial resources, having
immovable properties, with a value of more than Rs. 6 crores. We
cannot lose sight of the fact that, the parties in matrimonial litigation
do not: a) Disclose their true income. b) Value the assets owned by
them, correctly.

16. It is submitted that Respondent’s closing bank balance for financial year 01.04.2020-
31.03.2021 is Rs. 17,25,870/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand
Eight Hundred and Seventy Only) Thus, amount of funds available with Respondent
at the end of the financial year was Rs.17,25,870/-

17. It is submitted that the Respondent has failed to disclose his ITR for assessment year
2021-2022. Thus, it can be presumed that Respondent’s revenue for FY 2020-2021 was
at the least 17,25,870/, (only from one account) (Ref: Pg. 38,53 of Documents filed
with his Income Affidavit filed under Index dated 02.12.2021)
18. The Respondent has made a bald statement that his income for FY 2020-2021 was 30-
35000/- per month/-. However, has failed to disclose how much of the revenue was
spent on expenses of the business etc. to calculate his net income that is income after
taxes, expenses wages etc.

19. More importantly, the Respondent has admitted in his cross-examination dated
04.06.2024 that he does all his personal expenses also from his business account. It is
settled law that as a sole proprietor, you can deduct any ordinary and necessary
expenses incurred only while running your business, and directly related to business
not personal expenses. Thus, money used for personal expenses cannot be deducted as
business expenses. The Petitioner reserves her right to initiate appropriate proceedings
under the Income Tax Act against the Respondent for tax evasion.
III. CAN THIS HON’BLE COURT DELVE INTO THE TRUE INCOME OF A
PERSON IF THE SAME IS NOT DISCLOSED? WHAT ARE THE FACTORS
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR SUCH DETERMINATION?

20. That the Courts have the authority to guess the income when sources are not disclosed
by a Husband. In Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava 181 (2011) DLT 602 it was held
by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

When “guessing the income of the spouse, when the sources of income
are either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court can take
into consideration amongst others the following factors:

(i) Life style of the spouse

(ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage and the manner
in which marriage was performed;
(iii) Destination of honeymoon;
(iv) Ownership of motor vehicles;
(v) Household facilities;
(vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help;
(vii) Credit cards;
(viii) Bank account details;
(ix) Club Membership;
(x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid;
(xi) Property or properties purchased;
(xii) Rental income;
(xiii) Amount of rent paid;
(xiv) Amount spent on travel/ holiday;
(xv) Locality of residence;
(xvi) Number of mobile phones;
(xvii) Qualification of spouse;
(xviii) School(s) where the child or children are studying when
parties were residing together;
(xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses incurred;
(xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular activities of children
when parties were residing together;
(xxi) Capacity to pay Loan”
12. It is submitted that the Respondent has the following IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES:

i. No. 73, Khasra No. 30/12, Opposite Shiv Mandir, Bhagwan Park,
Village — Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi — 110084, 25 square yards
(Ref: Pg.11-12 of Income Affidavit of Respondent filed under Index
dated 02.12.2021) Thus, the same is valued at approximately Rs.35-40
lacs for an independent 3BHK floor.

[Link]

ii. House No. C-17, consisting of 4 floors 3BHK, Gali No. 2, Hardev Nagar,
Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi — 110084, where the Respondent is
residing is measuring 100 sq. yds valued at 40-65 lacs per floor, thereby
making it at the least 645lakhs for one floor.

[Link]

delhi-pppfs
Note:
• It is submitted that the Respondent suggested in cross
examination dated 08.04.2022, the said Property belongs to his
sister’s mother-in-law, Mrs. Darshan Kaur. He was asked if he
can place on record any document to show that Darshan kaur
(Sister’s mother-in-law) is owner of the said Property. However,
the Respondent has not placed on record any document to
indicate the same.

• The Respondent has only placed on record unregistered Rent

Agreement dated 15.08.2021, which was for a period of 11
months i.e. till 9.07.2022. (Ref: Pg. 110-111 of Documents filed
with his Income Affidavit filed under Index dated 02.12.2021
 • It is submitted that admittedly the Respondent has been staying
in the property for atleast 8-10 years. The Respondent has not
placed on record the Rent Agreement after the above said period
or before the said period. Even otherwise, without admitting even
if we consider the case of the Respondent that it is a rental
property and her mother is paying rent of 6500/- shows that she
is not a dependent. (Ref: Respondent’s Cross-examination
dated 20.05.2023 and 15.04.2023)

iii. B-26, Tyagi Market, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, is owned by his
mother. Respondent has admitted the same. (Ref: Cross-examination
Order dated 04.06.2024 of the Respondent) is valued at 1.15 crore.

[Link]
mandi-azadpur-new-delhi

iv. 152, Gali No. 3, East Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla measuring 25 yards
valued at ₹40-65 lacs used as an office as admitted in order dated
08.04.2022 (Ref: Cross-examination dated 08.04.2022 of the
Respondent) And the entire address was given in order dated
07.09.2018 (Ref: Cross-examination dated 08.04.2022 of the
Respondent).
 [Link]
new-delhi-pppfs

v. Godown situated at Kushak Hiranki available for rent at ₹60,000 per

month. (Ref: Cross-examination dated 08.04.2022 of the
Respondent)

[Link]

vi. LG-1, Lusa Tower, Azadpur, owned by his mother as admitted in Cross
Examination of the Respondent on 04.06.202 and 08.04.2022 but being
operated as a place of business by the Respondent as shown in his
Facebook post -dated 09.03.2023 valued at ₹80-82 lacs.
[Link]
16131026582
 (The same document is admitted by Respondent as Exhibited as
RW-1/P-6 as evident from Cross-Examination dated 04.06.2024)

[Link]
delhi-pppfs

13. The Respondent also has purchased the following MOVABLE PROPERTIES:

i. Shih Tzu breed purchased in the year 2020, who the Respondent claims
the medical care is taken by children. And that day-to-day human
vegetarian food is being fed to him, which seems like a lie because for a
dog to function, day-to-day Indian vegetarian food is not enough for
survival. A Shih Tzu dog’s food cost make up ₹2,500-3,500. As a dog
 that requires a lot of maintenance with respect to grooming, around
₹3,000-7,500 (thrice a month) must be spent on hair care. Vet Check-ups
take up ₹1,500-3,000. Essentially, around ₹6,500-14,000 are spent by
the Respondent. This figure does not include other expenses such as
toys and treats, clothing, insurance, unexpected emergencies, etc.
Therefore, realistically, the family must be spending about ₹10,000-
20,000 on the dog every month.

[Link]

(Ref: Cross-examination of Respondent dated 15.04.2023).

ii. A Cow, posted as a “Naya mehman” or new guest in his social media.
The Cost of a cow isThe Respondent is deliberately hiding given that the
produce (milk) from this animal creates an additional source of income.
(Ref: Cross-examination of Respondent dated 04.06.2023)
 iii. That, “The income from a dairy farm depends on a variety of factors. If
we try to estimate the income, this is how the figures look like- One liter
of milk is sold at around Rs.60 in urban areas. With one cow giving at
least 15 liters of milk in a day, revenue from the sale of milk of one cow
comes around ₹900. Deducting the expense of the cattle feed, which is
approximately ₹130/day for a cow, the approximate profit earned per
cattle for a day is ₹770,” thereby making it a monthly income of ₹23,100-
23,870 a month.

[Link]
earn/#:~:text=With%20one%20cow%20giving%20at,for%20a%20day%20is
%20Rs.

(The same document is admitted by Respondent as Exhibited as RW-1/P-4

as evident from cross-examination dated 04.06.2024)
iv. Xiaomi Redmi Note 7S: valued starting at ₹13,999 at [Link],
shown in his Facebook post depicted at the bottom of the image, dated
13 May 2020 titled “Bittergourd uttam (kantyadar)”

(The same document is admitted by Respondent as Exhibited as

RW-1/P-5 as evident from cross-examination dated 04.06.2024)

[Link]
oFDknk
 [Link]
gb/p/itm2fd6783550ddc?pid=MOBFJFZWDQGFGACH&lid=LSTMO
BFJFZWDQGFGACHSCXZI4&marketplace=FLIPKART&sattr[]=col
or&sattr[]=storage&sattr[]=ram&st=storage

v. Samsung A50: valued starting at ₹24,000 at [Link], shown in his

Facebook post depicted at the bottom of the image, dated 14 August 2020
titled “My taric garden spong gourd (Tori plen)F-1Saya”
[Link]
id=100010137845390&mibextid=oFDknk&rdid=eSWtKXmJQr5EksX
X

(The same document is admitted by Respondent as Exhibited as RW-

1/P-5 as evident from cross-examination dated 04.06.2024)
 [Link]
gb/p/itmfe4cs57gyhnkz?pid=MOBFE4CSUQHGWE9V&lid=LSTMO
BFE4CSUQHGWE9VZGRI30&marketplace=FLIPKART&sattr[]=col
or&sattr[]=ram&st=ram

vi. In his Profile Picture of his Facebook, the Respondent has been shown
wearing Ray Ban sunglasses valued at worth ₹11,000 – ₹34,000
 (The same document is admitted by Respondent as Exhibited as RW-
1/P-3 as evident from order dated 4.06.2024)

[Link]
FDknk

[Link]
popular/[Link]?_=1719875959138&frame_color=327&frame_sh
ape=320

vii. A TVS Jupiter Grande purchased by the Respondent in 2018, admitted

in Cross Examination Order dated 15.04.2023, launched at the starting
price of ₹55,936
[Link]
grande-launched-with-new-features-starts-at-rs-
55936/articleshow/[Link]

viii. Trade Mark of Business of the Respondent was registered by Singh and
Associates admitted by the Respondent vide Cross Examination Order
of the Respondent dated 04.06.2024, who usually charge more then
₹20,000 per consultation.
14. That the Respondent is a man of means is also evident from the fee he has being paying
of his children towards school and now towards their higher education.

i. Vide Cross Examination Order dated 08.04.2022, the Respondent

admitted that his Two children studied at Chinmay Vidyalaya, Nono,
Himachal Pradesh, where their yearly expenses were 2 to 2.25 lacs,
which Respondent’s mother was helping in payment of. This fact also
shows that the Respondent’s mother is not a dependent.

ii. After graduation, Respondent’s daughter studied BA from June 2020-

July 2023 IGNOU and her fees was 87,000/- per year. (Ref: Cross
15.04.2023)
 iii. After graduation, Respondent’s son studied BSC from Galgotia and his
fees 63,000/- per annum. (Ref: Cross-examination dated 15.04.2023 of
the Respondent)

iv. Respondent admitted that he paid fees of the children through his
business account. However, he could not show the same from any entry.

v. Now the Respondent’s daughter is pursuing Master’s Degree from Christ

University Bangalore since July 2023, where the fees is 3.82 lakhs per
year. The Course is for 2 years. The Respondent claims is being financed
on her own, through her own job. However, he is unable to produce any
documentary evidence on such earnings/job. (Ref: Cross-examination
dated 04.06.2023 of the Respondent)

vi. Through her LinkedIn profile (which is admitted as Exhibited as RW-

1/P-1) it has been shown that she has been reported to be studying from
June 2020 – July 2023 in IGNOU. Then immediately she pursued
Master’s Degree from July 2023. Throughout this period, she has
engaged in 8 different internships. It is difficult to ascertain the status of
her potential employment status. The cost for travel, and other costs have
not been disclosed by the Respondent.

vii. It is submitted that in his cross dated 4.06.2024, has stated that while she
was in IGNOU, she got a job without a degree, and made the fees of
Christ college through that. If we take this to be true, in that case her
daughter is not his dependent any more.

15. It is submitted that that in Nitin Sharma v. Sunita Sharma, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 694,
Delhi High Court opined that the income has to be ascertained keeping in mind that the
deductions only towards income tax and compulsory contributions like GPF, EPF, etc.
are permitted and no deductions towards house rent, electric charges, repayment of
loan, LIC payments etc. are permitted.

16. It is submitted that it is difficult to ascertain the income of the Respondent, and that the
expenses listed above are impossible to be borne by a person earing an income. That,
he is downplaying his income through furnishing old Income Tax Returns, which has
the status of his old bank details specifically hidden and that he is taking intentional
 steps to ensure that any passive source of income that could be generated, is prohibited
to do so.

17. Vide Order dated 17.05.2013 passed in HMA 350 of 2012, Ld. Additional District
Judge (Central) Delhi has made following observations against the Respondent. The
said order has not been challenged.
18. It was noted that after calculation of all his expenditure, including the monthly expenses
sent to children in boarding school, it was established that he earns at least ₹50,000 in
2013.

19. It is submitted that as per Respondent his current income is 30,000-35000 per month
i.e. (3,60,000-4,20,000)

20. However, the Respondent’ has already undertaken at the least following personal
expenses for the financial year 1 April 2023-March 2024 are:

i. Paid maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the Petitioner towards

current and outstanding dues as per Order dated 17.05.2023 passed by
Hon’ble DHC with effect from May 2023. Thus, amount paid till March
2024 amounts to Rs. 3,30,000/- (Ref: Order dated 17.05.2023 passed
in Cont Cas(C) 872 of 2021)

ii. Apart from that he did expenses on education of his daughter of 3.82
lakhs that he paid in July 2023.

iii. Then his son is still studding in college and his yearly expenses on
education are 87,000/ per year.
 iv. Rental Expenses of Godown rented by him at Kushuk Hiranki is Rs.
6,000/- per month as per him, which amounts to annually 72,000. (Ref:
Cross-examination of Respondent dated 08.04.2023) The Petitioner
denies the amount, becuase the rental amount cannot be as low as 6000/-
.However, even if we take the minimum, he spends at the least Rs
72,000/-per year.

21. Thus, as per conservative standard, out of net income of 4,20,000/- the Respondent has
already spent Rs. 925,000/-

22. Thus, guesswork and through his general lifestyle, expenses etc. it can be assumed
that he earns atleast 8-10 lacs per annum.
IV. ONCE THE TRUE INCOME IS DISTRIBUTED, WHAT ARE THE
GUIDELINES THAT A FAMILY COURT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDER
TO DETERMINE A FAIR MAINTENANCE AMOUNT?

23. It is settled law that wife is entitled to 25% of the net income of the husband. Thus,
wife should get ¼ of the income of the husband.

24. Without prejudice to above and in arguendo (in alternative), it is summitted that one of
the manner of distribution of a Husband is made through its divisions into units.
Through this method, income is to be equally distributed among his dependents,
wherein each adult makes up 2 units and a child makes up 1 unit. In Sh. Jitender Singh
Bhandari vs Smt. Krishna and Anr. Crl. Appeal No. 04/19 Case ID No. 37/19
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi it was calculated as follows

4. Ld. Trial Court has further observed that ‘in these circumstances,
income of respondent/husband has to be equitably apportioned for
maintenance of wife and child. Thus, if we divide the income of the
respondent i.e. Rs.12,000/- in five units, two units each for adults and
one unit for the child, then the wife is supposed to get maintenance @
Rs.4,800/- per month towards maintenance and the child is supposed to
get Rs.2,400/- per month. In all, the wife must get Rs.7,200/- per month
towards maintenance. This figure may be rounded off to Rs.6,000/- per
month keeping some margin for extra expenses of the earning husband.
Therefore, respondent no. 1 is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner
towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of petition till further
orders to avoid any hardship to the petitioner and the minor daughter’..
Hence, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the
abovesaid order.

25. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s mother-in-law/ Respondent’s mother should not be
included as a dependent person. That she incurs rents from her property in Lusa Tower
in Azadpur and as stated in order 04.06.2024 she has had a history of financing
educational expenses of the children. In Nitin Sharma and Ors. vs. Sunita Sharma
and Ors. 279 (2021) DLT 227 it was held that

31. Even if it is assumed that the rent agreement placed on record might
have been manipulated to save income tax, then also it cannot be lose
sight of that mother is receiving a good amount of pension and is thus,
financially independent …
 32. Accordingly, I find that the trial court has erred in keeping mother's
share in the income of husband.

26. As an alternative model to this, in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 569 it
was held
III (i) 58. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of
maintenance to be awarded. The factors which would weigh with the Court
inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children; whether the Applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the Applicant has any independent source of income;
whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard
of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the
Applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working
during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to
sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child
rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of
litigation for a non-working wife.
III (iv) 58. Section 20(2) of the D.V. Act provides that the monetary relief
granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair,
reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the
aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.

27. It is submitted that Courts should also consider the impact of inflation when
determining maintenance. In Rajnesh vs. Neha and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 569 it was held

(iii) … The Court, while deciding such a petition must give due regard
to the standard of living of the wife and children, as well as the constantly
escalating inflation rates and costs of living. The plea of the appellant
that his income is not sufficient cannot absolve him from paying the
respondent and his two children their due maintenance.

28. It is submitted that in Bimla Rani & Ors vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors on 11 October,
2012, it was held by the Delhi High Court that responsibility towards adult daughter
does not make her financially dependent. And that if financial dependency is not
proved, there shall be no share in the husband’s income under Section 125 of CRPC

5. No evidence was led by the Appellants to prove that the four adults,
i.e., two son and two daughters were dependent on the deceased. In the
 circumstances, it was only the First Appellant who was primarily
dependent on the deceased, at the most it could be said that the deceased
also had the responsibility of his two daughters although they were not
financially dependent, but yet to be married. In the circumstances,
deduction towards personal and living expenses would be 1/4th and not
1/10th. Gopali cited by the learned counsel for the Appellants is not
attracted to the facts of the present case.

29. That, if the claim that the daughter, after completion of her schooling has the ability
to obtain a job that pays enough to finance Masters education in a Private University,
and maintain her food, clothing, shelter, etc, then she shouldn’t be added as a
dependent in the calculation of share of a husband’s income.

30. As a concluding note, it is submitted that wife is entitled to 25% i.e. ¼ of

Respondent’s income.

31. In alternate, it is submitted that the Respondent’s income should be divided into 3
parts:
a. His own – 2 units
b. The Petitioner – 2 units
c. Their son – 1 unit.

32. Thus, Respondent is entitled to minimum of 1/5th of the Respondent’s income.

V. IS THE PETITIONER WIFE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN HERSELF?

33. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a homemaker and does not have any income of her
own. She had never undergone any professional training and has studied only till class
XII. This has been acknowledged by the Respondent as well. As a woman raised in a
patriarchal society, her livelihood encompassed childrearing and performance of
domestic duties, which has historically perceived as “unemployed”.

34. Her expertise exists in this unpaid labor, and in this competitive job market, she does
not possess the skills required to earn a dignified income.

VI. CAN THE RESPONDENT BE FINED FOR NOT PAYING MAINTENANCE?

35. It is submitted that the Respondent had been ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000
to the Petitioner. However, the Respondent had only started paying the dues after the
initiation of Contempt Proceedings against him. It was held in Prakash vs. Vithabai
and Ors. Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2023 High Court Of Bombay
(Aurangabad Bench)

12. … The trial Courts are not awarding interest on maintenance

amount. There is no any legal ban to award interest on that amount of
maintenance. The husbands or fathers are many a times are not
depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together. They have no
fear or burden to payment of interest on that amount of maintenance. It
is a serious legal mischief in mischief. Section 125 of the CrPC does not
prohibit to wards maintenance. Therefore, Courts of District Judiciary
are expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that
these weaker sections of the society will get their maintenance amount
expeditiously. It will serve the purpose of speed justice. Thus, in order to
secure their rights fully, effectively and speedily which is an object of
justice interest must be awarded which is rationally expected. Their
amount of maintenance shall not remain in the hands of the other side
which deprives them for maximum period from it. Thus, it is now
mandatory to award interest on the amount of maintenance for that this
judgment shall be circulated to the District Judiciary of Maharashtra.
 36. That the Respondent should be charged with interest for non-payment of maintenance
from date of filing of application. In Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 569
93. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about
uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all Courts, by
directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the
application was made before the concerned Court. The right to claim
maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since
the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending
is not within the control of the applicant.

37. It is submitted that Respondent had make payment of 2,88,000/ (from March 2019-
12.11.2021) against total payment of 8,40,000/-. The Respondent had not paid
outstanding payment of Rs. 5,52,000/- in violation of Order dated 30.03.2015. The
Petitioner had filed execution Petition bearing 194 of 2018 for recovery of amount due
from 14.10.2014- 19.10.2018 (i.e. date of Application till 9.10.2018) Despite, the same.
the Respondent did not pay the amount. He started paying partly after the contempt
petition was filed i.e. only after 05.08.2022. Thereafter after specific order of
17.05.2023 Hon’ble HC, he started clearing arrears.

38. Thus, Respondent is entitled to pay interest as well.

THROUGH
AARZOO ANEJA
D/2485/2016
Counsel for the Petitioner
E-345, Greater Kailash-II,
New Delhi-110048
+91 9540129000
[Link]@[Link]

Date:12.07.2024
Place: New Delhi