Smt. Sujata Aggarwal vs Shri Ravi
Shanker Aggarwal
Delhi District Court
Smt. Sujata Aggarwal vs
Shri Ravi Shanker Aggarwal on 7 June, 2010
Author: Ms. Geetanjli
Goel
IN THE COURT OF Ms.
GEETANJLI GOEL, MM, NEW DELHI
CC No. 153/1B
Date of Institution:
29.07.2004
Date Reserved for
Judgment: 19.05.2010
Date of Judgment:
07.06.2010
U/s 125 Cr.P.C.
PS Tughlak Road
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Sujata Aggarwal
W/o Shri Ravi Shanker
Agarwal
D/o Late Sh. G.N.
Mehra,
R/o R/o C-1/13,
Safdarjung Development Area,
New Delhi-110 016.
Petitioner
Versus
Shri Ravi Shanker
Aggarwal
S/o Sh. S.M. Aggarwal
R/o 111, Golf Links,
New Delhi-110 003
Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. The present is a
petition U/s 125 Cr. P.C filed by the petitioner against her husband claiming maintenance.
It is the case of the petitioner that she was married to the respondent on
10.06.1987 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. From the wedlock
one daughter Vardha was born on 24.07.1989 The respondent had been cruel to the
petitioner and had deserted the petitioner since 1994. The respondent had
further failed in his legal duty to maintain the petitioner and her daughter since
birth. It is averred that the petitioner is totally dependent upon her parents
for her maintenance.
2. It is averred that
the petitioner had been deserted and neglected by the respondent without any reasonable
cause. It is averred that the minor is in the custody of her mother since her
birth and her mother alone had been caring for the minor. The respondent had
refused to maintain the petitioner and the child. The petitioner has no source
of income and was fully dependent upon her parents.
3. It is averred that
the respondent is guilty of abandoning the petitioner and had treated the petitioner
with utmost cruelty and had refused to live with the petitioner despite all her
efforts to save her matrimonial house. Respondent had illicit relations with
his girl friend which had been one of the main causes of his deserting the
petitioner whom the respondent used to find most unattractive girl compared to
his girl friends. It is averred that the respondent had been maintaining sexual
relations with a number of girls outside the wedlock.
4. It is averred that
the instances of the cruelties inflicted upon the petitioner and the minor
during petitioners stay in the matrimonial house and even after her desertion
had been stated in the written statement filed by the petitioner in the divorce
petition filed by the respondent. Despite the fact that the respondent had been
cruel to the petitioner and the minor, the respondent had filed a frivolous divorce
petition against the petitioner and had been pressurizing her to obtain mutual
divorce. The respondent had not paid any maintenance for the petitioner or for
the minor and was liable to pay the same since the day of deserting the
petitioner and the minor. It is averred that the respondent is a man of means.
The respondent had always lived a life of an affluent spoiled rich man who
never shared any responsibilities of a husband or a father. The respondent
never cared for the sentiments of the petitioner and lead an adulterous life
overtly without even the slightest shame.
5. It is averred that
the respondent had withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any just
and reasonable cause or excuse. It is averred that the respondent is the only
son of his parents besides having two married sisters and one unmarried sister
aged 35 years and the unmarried sister had been living in the matrimonial home
of the respondent at Golf Links which is a palatial bungalow. It is averred
that the respondent had immense unaccounted wealth movable and immovable assets
which he had been concealing from the income tax department by making fictitious
companies opening benami accounts. The respondent was having two assessments
done with the income tax department, one in personal capacity and one in the
name of HUF one of them being by the name of Ravi Aggarwal (HUF). The
respondent even filed the returns in the name of petitioner and used to take
signatures of petitioner on some forms as respondent had been extremely dominating.
It is averred that the respondent is maintaining a separate rented house at Jangpura
Extensionto entertain his girl friends where he could freely indulge in
adulterous acts. He had also acquired another house at Jangpura extension.
6. It is averred that
the petitioner, her daughter and respondent were member of HUF of his father by
the name of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal & Sons. The said HUF of which respondent was
a member had commercial flat No. 1001 in Antariksh Bhavan in Connaught Place
which was worth Rs. 30 to 40 lacs besides two offices in the basement i.e
MB-10, LB-56, Antariksh Bhawan of the said building of the value of rupees
twenty to 30 lacs each. It is averred that the respondent was running a company
by the name of Srishti where he was working with one girl Bharti Chaturvedi.
Respondent had rented out the other basement and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per
month as rent from the same though the house tax bills and receipts show the
said flats in the name of Sh. Suraj Mal & Sons.
7. It is averred that
about five months prior the respondent had acquired another flat No.1008 in Antariksh
Bhavan under the name of Engineering Services and had started another office at
a newly acquired property No. H-2 Jang Pura near the residential flat where he
had been living which was also near to the house of Ms. Bharti Chaturvedi. The
respondent had two offices in another multi-storied building Naurang House
which were rented out and the respondent was getting Rs. 40,000/- as rental
income from the said flats. The respondent maintained a Bar having costliest bottles
of whiskey and scotches. It is averred that the respondent possessed all
luxuries like cars, Air Conditioners at home and offices and the respondent and
his family were having a number of bank accounts some of which the respondent
had concealed. The bank accounts and deposits of respondent and his family
members are referred to. It is averred that the deposits are only in respect of
one account of each member of the family on which the petitioner could lay
hands. In all the said deposits there was no cash deposit in any of the
accounts.
8. It is averred that
the respondent and his father after filing the Divorce Petition had been transferring
huge amounts from the account of respondent and from the account of HUF to the accounts
of Ms. Bina Aggarwal and to the account of Shyama Devi. There were further cash
withdrawals as well as cheque withdrawals of huge amounts showing the malafide
intention to conceal the actual income of the respondent. It is averred that
there were withdrawals of more than Rs.40 lacs from the accounts of HUF and Sh.
S.M. Aggarwal in a year or so. It is averred that the statement of account of
the bank account of respondent would show that he is having income from HUF
also of which he is a member. Huge amount was being transferred from one
account to the other between all four family members which shows joint income
and manipulation done by Sh. S.M. Aggarwal to reduce the income slab and for
converting the black money to white.
9. It is averred that
the bank accounts of the respondent and the HUF show deposits of more than Rs.
3-4 lacs in three months quarter making it around 13-14 lacs in a year. It is
averred that the respondent who was alleging his income to be Rs. 47,000/- per
month in the divorce petition had concealed his income. There were withdrawals
of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month from accounts of petitioner. It is averred
that before filing of the divorce case and after the litigation started between
the parties, it would be seen from the statement of accounts that huge amounts
were being transferred from the account of the respondent to the account of his
father or HUF and other family members.
10. It is averred that
the diary of Sh. Ravi Aggarwal and Sh. S.M. Aggarwal which was in the hand writing
of both of them shows that Sh. S.M. Aggarwal had been managing all the
financial aspects of the entire family and he knew the income tax details and
all relating matters of all members and he disclosed before the income tax
authorities the income which could not be concealed. It is averred that
unaccounted income has been invested in properties as well as deposits, shares.
11. It is averred that
the respondent and his father also had HUF by the name of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal
& Son and the said HUF had purchased many properties which also had rental
income including house at Shanti Niketan which was on rent which was a palatial
bungalow. The respondent had admitted in court that he is getting rent of Rs.
10 lacs per month besides Rs. 30,000/- per month his recently added personal
income besides Rs. 48,000/- which he had admitted in reply to Section 24 of
HMA.
12. It is averred that
the respondent had a farm house in his personal name or in the name of HUF or
in Benami name. The respondent also had phone numbers at Jangpura and Fax
connection and also had e-mail address . Telephone is also installed at C-232,
Defence Colony which is also HUF house. It is averred that the rental income
comes from the said house also which had been concealed by the respondent. The
respondent is and had also been working as Environmental consultant working in
the area of toxics and other environmental issues for over 10 years. It is
averred that out of the income of respondent nobody is dependent upon him.
Respondent's mother who is an illiterate lady and a house wife had income of
more than Rs.50,000/- per month and files income tax return. Father of the
respondent also had income of more than Rs. 10 lacs per month and was an income
tax payee. It is averred that the respondent was the only son and it had also
come to the knowledge of the petitioner that parents of the respondent had
executed a will bequeathing all the properties including the income arising out
of their investments to the respondent on seeing the litigation so that the
petitioner could be deprived of all her legal rights. Respondent had been
filing returns in the name of petitioner by forging her signature even after
separation. Petitioner had already filed a complaint with the Income Tax
Department against Sh. Ravi Aggarwal for filing returns in the name of
petitioner by forging her signature although he himself alleges that petitioner
left in 1994. The petitioner had not filed any return during that period nor
petitioner signed any return nor she was aware of any income nor had ever
visited the Income Tax Office or the office of any Chartered Accounted. The
petitioner had also filed a case of injunction against the Chartered Accountant
who had been filing forged returns.
13. It is averred that
the respondent had also been running a factory by the name of Tuners and Drivers
at Okhla Industrial Area and had been making TV Tuners and had also been
earning more than Rs. 1 lac per month profits from the same. The respondent
alone had been running the factory in 1991 and thereafter entered into some
partnership. The said factory premises belonged to respondent and was worth 3
to 4 crores of rupees. It is averred that the respondent had another factory at
S-11, Okhla Phase-II, Electronic EState, New Delhi which was also owned by
respondent as Proprietor of M/s Engineering Services. Respondent had entered
into a collaboration agreement with a British concern by the name of Marconi
Communication registered in England Edge Lane, Liverpool, United Kingdom
manufacturing digital corn boxes for public telephone and was earning additional
income of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the said business. The respondent was paying
House Tax of Rs. 28,000/- approximately for the said factory and the assessment
was done in his name with the MCD. The electricity and water bills were also in
respondent's name and he was paying bills in the range of Rs. 2,000/- to
7,000/-. The said factory is built in area of 400 sq. yd.
14. It is averred that
the respondent possesses credit cards of various banks nationalized and foreign
banks. Respondent was regularly using his Citi Bank Card and bills from the
said card are also ranging from Rs. 5,000/- to 10,000/- every month. It is
averred that the respondent in the year 1991-92 became the sole agent of
multinational American company and earned income of Rs. 40 to 60/- lacs from
the same as his commission for the business given to them. It is averred that
the respondent was now acting as a permanent retainer/Commissioner agent for
the said company and is getting one thousand US dollars besides commission and
other perks. It is averred that during the stay of the petitioner in the
matrimonial home lavish parties were arranged by respondent. Mr. Gomez and Mr.
Jim of the said company had been dealing with the respondent and in these
parties costly gifts were given by the respondent to the guests. Dinners were
also given by the respondent at five star hotels regularly to different persons
for the promotion of his business. In fact respondent's birthday was celebrated
in Claridges Hotel in a very lavish maner. Respondent had simultaneously been
earning from photography assignments which had always been his side business.
He had been holding exhibition.
15. It is averred that
the respondent after marriage with the petitioner became close to a female namely
Ms. Bharti Chaturvedi at Bharatpur bird sanctuary where respondent, petitioner
and the minor had gone for an excursion trip. Respondent took her to his office
and started running the company by the name of Srishti and even opened an
office for her at the basement flat of Antariksh Bhavan, Connaught Place and
accounts of respondent would show substantial payments to her.
16. The respondent
employed many new girls in the said company and the company's main job was to
study environment. On this excuse respondent and his girl friends used to come
to the house and used to leave out together early in the morning for outings.
Respondent used to spend lavishly on all this. The respondent used to talk for
hours on telephone with the girls and whenever the petitioner objected to it.
The respondent used to condemn the petitioner by saying that they are small
girls.
17. It is averred that
the respondent is the Chief Execution Officer of society which is a non-governmental
organization and also gets funds. The respondent regularly comes on TV and had got
Ashok Fellowship. The respondent is a member of Vasant Vihar Club and also
India Habitat Centre and various other clubs and resorts. He also went out for
foreign trips and on every visit he spent more than Rs. 2 to 3 lacs. The
respondent was also doing consultancy work and was earning about Rs. 50 to 60
thousand a month from the same. Respondent's father was working with Hindustan
Times as an adviser to the board. It is averred that he is Director of about 10
Birla companies and earlier he retired as Ex-Secretary to Government of India.
He had very high connections because of his post as secretary in Ministry of
Communication. Besides his income from consultancy and association with Birla
companies he was getting pension of Rs. 10,000/- per month approximately.
18. It is averred that
the respondent also had rental income of more than Rs. 25,000/- per month from
another house at Defence Colony and telephone was installed on the said
address. The respondent had a joint locker at PNB with the petitioner which had
been operated only once in 1987 or so when petitioner had kept her jewellery in
it and since then the respondent is possessing the keys of the same and had
never allowed the petitioner to operate the same. The petitioner's entire jewellery
was lying with the respondent. All her clothing & other goods, Istridhan
were lying at Golf Links house. It is averred that the respondent had
unaccountable wealth by concealing from Income Tax Department. The respondent
had purchased shares of more than Rs. 60-70 lacs either in his name or in other
benami names which were all in his possession. A number of times he used to
take signatures of petitioner on share transfer forms but all the shares and
their details were with him. The respondent had also opened PPF account and
also accounts in the name of petitioner as well as other family members but had
been operating the accounts of his own. He had taken signature of petitioner on
blank cheque books and petitioner never had any right to say no to the
respondent.
19. It is averred that
one Account number is 10809 at Central Bank of India. All the pass book, cheque
books were lying with the respondent and all this was done by him for
converting his black money to white money. Respondent used to get income tax
returns filed in the name of petitioner as well as the minor daughter. It is
averred that to shirk his liabilities, the respondent and his family was
gradually disposing off immovable assets and he had also sold off one shop in
Daryaganj for a sum of Rs. 40 lacs. The respondent had also a flat at Bombay
which he had sold out about 1-2 years back when he decided to desert the
petitioner. The said flat was sold for Rs. 10 lacs and the amount was lying
with the respondent. The respondent had also a flat and shop in his name or in
benami name in Jaipur which had also been sold recently for a sum of Rs. 20
lacs and the said amount was lying with the respondent and his family members.
The respondent also had a factory in Sahibabad which was in partnership and he
had also purchased a residential plot at DLF and he had also purchased two
flats in Shushant Lok which had been rented out. It is averred that the
respondent and his family out of the HUF funds had also purchased properties in
Dwarka in individual names or in the name of HUF.
20. It is averred that
the respondent's two sisters are married and living in USA. The respondent had dealt
in Hawala with the help of his sister and brother-in-law who are abroad and he
had been getting crores of rupees transferred by way of Hawala in conspiracy
with his sister & brother-in-law. It is averred that in USA the petitioner
is collecting the documentary evidence to produce before the court to take
necessary criminal prosecution against the respondent and his family members.
The respondent took his father and mother to USA for 1- ½ and got him operated
for angiography and spent more than Rs. 20 lacs on the treatment of his father.
It is averred that the respondent's father after return from USA was admitted
in Escorts in Delhi and was operated again and a sum of Rs. 2-3 lacs was spent
on him.
21. It is averred that
the life style of the respondent and his family would go to show that the respondent
and his family is another such family who had amassed unaccounted wealth by concealing
from the Income Tax authorities and was living in a posh life style possessing
almost all luxuries which are disproportionate to the income disclosed. The
respondent and his family members had been wearing the costliest clothes
available on earth and wore only high class branded clothes. It is averred that
the individual monthly income of respondent in his name is more than Rs. 10
lacs per month and total income from HUF is more than Rs. 60 lacs per month out
of which respondent has a major share. Although respondent had been earning Rs.
10 lacs a month, he never gave any pocket money to the petitioner nor even
asked her if she needed any money and if petitioner ever demanded any money,
respondent used to humiliate the petitioner. The respondent's family had also
purchased a house in Nizamuddin for a sum of Rs. 40 lacs. Respondent had also invested
Rs. 25 lacs in his share in Defence Colony House. The respondent and his
parents are also running a hospital in Basawa, Rajasthan and earning Rs.
50,000/- from the same.
22. It is averred that
the respondent never showed any interest in the minor or her studies. The respondent
is residing with his father and is leading a luxurious life and they had got
all luxuries of life at their residence. It is averred that the petitioner has
a right to be maintained according to the living standard of the respondent. It
is averred that the petitioner is a housewife and is not earning. She has no
source of income. The petitioner is not aware of any fixed deposit or any other
income nor had received any income from any such deposit. The petitioner is
getting no independent income in her hands sufficient for her support and to
meet the expenses of the proceedings. The respondent had not made any provision
for the maintenance of petitioner or his daughter Vardha. It is averred that no
one is dependent upon the respondent. The parents of respondent are income
taxpayees.
23. It is averred that
the respondent's father is maintaining account in Allahabad Bank or UCO Bank and
had not even disclosed the correct address and had shown a wrong address. The
petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2 lacs per month as maintenance
besides Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses. It is averred that on seeing the
cruelties of the respondent, respondent's father for 8-10 months had been
sending Rs. 10,000/- per month out of HUF income to the petitioner as a compensation.
During the period of desertion, respondent through his parents had persuaded
the petitioner for giving a mutual divorce and had been offering a residential
flat besides Rs. 60,000/- as maintenance to make him free for spoiling the life
of other females. It is averred that the minor is entitled to get a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- per month for herself as maintenance for which she had filed a
separate petition.
24. It is averred that
the respondent and his father are so affluent that they had also made a Trust
by th name of Suraj Mal Shama Devi Trust and had donated a full fledged
hospital to Rajathan Government after constructing it in Village and they also
donated idols of Gods in Hanuman Mandir in Connaught Place worth lacs of
rupees. It is averred that the petitioner required and is entitled to get a sum
of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month for her maintenance considering the income and
status of respondent and his family. It is averred that the petitioner is
suffering from tuberculosis and other serious ailments connected with heart,
blood pressure and she could not move about and had been advised complete bed
rest. It is averred that the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondent on 24.11.1994 when respondent deserted the petitioner.
The petitioner has prayed for maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month
considering the status of the respondent from the date of desertion i.e.
24.11.1994.
25. Reply was filed on
behalf of respondent denying the averments made in the petition and taking the
preliminary objections that the petition is without any merit and cause of
action. It is averred that the petitioner has filed a number of litigations
which are being adjudicated in different courts with the sole object of
defeating the divorce petition filed by the respondent upon the petitioner deserting
the respondent in 1994. it is averred that the petitioner is filing such false
and frivolous cases only to harass the respondent and his family.
26. It is averred that
it was a love marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, the only son of
the family. The complainant was the eldest of four daughters of an affluent
businessman at one time having three shops at Indira Gandhi Airport. A daughter
was born on 24.07.1989 out of the wedlock. It is averred that the petitioner
being the eldest daughter of the family having no son started working and
managing the business of her father without the consent of the respondent and his
family. She started working at night at the Airport shop neglecting her married
life responsibilities and this was the bone of contention and added to it was
the greed of the petitioner to grab various properties of the respondent.
27. It is averred that
the petitioner was under the impression that H. No.111, Golf Links where the respondent's
family was residing earlier was their own house but having known that it was a
rented house of the respondent's father, she left the house and deserted the
husband on 11.11.1994 with the daughter and took away all her belongings and
chose to live with her parents to look after her parents and manage his
affluent business at the cost of her wedded life. It is averred that the respondent
is a BE, MBA and is the son of Ex. Secretary to the Govt. of India who was
recipient of Padma Shree and the respondent is running an NGO and is an expert
on Pollution Control and was the member of Supreme Court Committee for Forest
Areas of State of Delhi 1997-1998 and is an internationally known
Environmentalist and has been elected a lifetime member of the Ashoka Fellowship.
28. It is averred that
all the efforts of the respondent and his family failed to bring the petitioner
wife back to matrimonial house after desertion in 1994 and she chose to live
with her parents without the consent of her husband. The respondent filed a
divorce petition in 1998 and the petitioner filed an application for
maintenance for herself and the daughter u/s 24 of HMA which was decided vide
order dt. 16.02.2001 and the petitioner was granted maintenance of sum of Rs. 25,000/-
per month for herself and the minor daughter.
29. It is averred that
the respondent filed a revision petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and
the amount was reduced to Rs. 15,000/- per month vide order dt. 16.04.2001 of
the Hon'ble High Court. It is averred that the respondent has been paying the
said amount since 1999 continuously without any break and the said amount had
been paid upto date. The petitioner had also filed a revision petition in
Hon'ble High Court which is pending. It is averred that the petitioner has
prayed for maintenance of Rs. 2 lacs per month and has also sought arrears
which proves that the complaint is frivolous. It is averred that the matter for
enhancement of maintenance was pending in Hon'ble High Court and so this court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner had also filed a
petition u/s 18 and 20 of HAMA in Hon'ble High Court which was pending. It is averred
that the petition is not maintainable and is a mis-use of process of law. It is
averred that all the accusations in the petition are the same that the
petitioner had been describing in her several suits and cases filed against the
respondent, and they were aimed at character assassination and maligning the
respondent and his family and claiming properties of which she had no right and
title and the fact of her marrying the respondent was the basis of her
litigation.
30. Vide order dt.
18.03.2009 interim maintenance was granted in favour of the petitioner.
31. The petitioner has
led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A reiterating the averments
made in the petition.
32. Sh. Gopal Prashad,
Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Khan Market appeared as PW2 and
produced the statement of account of the petitioner for the period 30.09.1999
onwards and from 01.10.2006 to 24.02.2009 which is Ex. PW2/A (Collectively).
The specimen signature card is Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C. On the next date he had
produced the bank deposit slips and the same are Ex. PW2/B. He stated that the
statement of account of the petitioner is in respect of Saving Bank Account No.
10809.
33. Sh. S.K. Aggarwal,
Special Assistant, UCO Bank, Parliament Street appeared as PW3 and had brought
the statement of account in respect of respondent for the period 01.07.2007 to
24.02.2009 which is Ex. PW3/A for Account No. 01200100028142 and from
01.01.1987 to 12.03.2007 which is Ex. PW3/B which is Ex. PW3/B, for account No.
01200100004350 for 01.07.2007 to 24.02.2009 is Ex. PW3/C, for 01.01.1987 to
12.03.2007 is Ex. PW3/D. Statement of account of Suraj Mal & Sons (HUF) for
01.01.1987 to 12.03.2007 is Ex. PW3/E, statement of account for Account No.
SB4349 of Bina Aggarwal and 17614 in respect of Shyama Devi had also been
brought by him but were not taken on record. During cross-examination PW3
stated that he had not brought the deposit slips and stated that all of them
could not be produced as they pertained to 20 years back. Even he could not
produce the details of cheque amounts, deposit or who had deposited the
cheques.
34. PW4 Sh. Varun Sood,
Clerk, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street had produced the certified copies
of the specimen signature card and account opening form of the respondent in
respect of account No. 33834 and Engineering Services which is proprietorship
of respondent and the same are Ex. PW4/A (Collectively) and statement of
account is Ex. PW4/B (Collectively). He stated that the said account has been
closed. He had not produced any document relating to closing of said account.
He had also produced document in respect of account of Bina and Shyama Devi but
the same were dis-allowed to be taken on record. He stated that he was saying
that the account had been closed as the same was showing zero balance. He could
not however say for sure as he was not dealing with that account. During
cross-examination he admitted that account was closed on 18.02.2002. Thereafter
there was no account of Engineering Services.
35. Ms. Varda Aggarwal
appeared as PW5 and led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW5/A and
deposed to the same effect as the petitioner.
36. Sh. R.K. Handa,
Clerk at MCD, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar appeared as PW6 and he had brought the
summoned record of property S-11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi.
He stated that as per record, the said property stood in the name of Sh. Ravi
Shankar Aggarwal as on date. The property was first time assessed in the year
01.04.1984 and since then continued to be assessed in the name of Sh. Ravi
Shankar Aggarwal of M/s Engineering Service. The ratable value for house tax purposes
was 1,19,910/- w.e.f. 01.04.2002. After 2004 the property was assessed on self
assessment and the assessed had to file PTR. He had brought the original file
of House Tax. He had brought Ex. PW6/1 which was the original carbon copy of
the assessment order dt. 20.05.2002. During cross-examination he stated that he
had brought the record in respect of property upto March, 2004.
37. PW7 Sh. D.P.
Bansal, CA appeared as PW7 and deposed that he know Ravi Aggarwal and Sh. S.M.
Aggarwal his father. Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal had been coming to him for
getting prepared Income Tax Return of HUF of Ravi Aggarwal and Sujata Aggarwal
and Ravi Aggarwal used to come to him for all purposes. He stated that she had
never come to him for filing any of the returns nor he had ever acted as a
Chartered Accountant. He only dealt with Sh. Ravi Aggarwal who used to come to
him for getting the returns prepared. He had not maintained any record of the
documents given to by him for preparing the returns nor he had kept any copies
of the returns which were got prepared by Sh. Ravi Aggarwal through him. He did
not remember anything about the details of his property and his income as it
was then a very old matter. He stated that if anything was shown to him, he
would try to explain. He admitted that the Income Tax Return at page 171 Ex.
PW7/1 was prepared by him at the instructions of Ravi Aggarwal. The income of
Surajmal Aggarwal HUF was not being reflected in the returns of Ravi Aggarwal
(HUF)as the income of Surajmal Aggarwal and HUF was not known to him. He stated
that he would have prepared returns for the HUF till 1995 to his mind. It would
be 1994 rather. He could not recollect by seeing the bank accounts shown to him
available in the file of the court as to whether he took into account all such
entries of transfer of amounts from S.M. Aggarwal, HUF to Ravi Aggarwal and
vice versa. Vol. he never demanded any such account from Ravi Aggarwal and
whatever account he had brought to him, he used to prepare the returns
according to information given by him. He could not verify the correctness of
the returns got prepared from his office as they were prepared only on the
basis of records and information provided by Sh. Ravi Aggarwal. He had never
received any service fees from Sujata Aggarwal. He did not file any return on
behalf of Sujata Aggarwal although Ravi Aggarwal got prepared from him her returns
as well on the basis of information given by him. He did not remember nor could
he tell s to what income he reflected in the returns prepared by him of Sujata
Agaarwal as all records used to be taken back immediately by Sh. Ravi Aggarwal.
He had never verified the correctness of the returns of Sujata Aggarwal.
However, he attested certain returns on the basis of original returns and other
relevant documents produced by Sh. Ravi Aggarwal. Sh. Ravi Aggarwal produced
the warrant dividend documents of various companies and PPF Pass book of Sujata
Aggarwal and after seeing them he certified the statements/returns of Sujata
which had been filed in the court. This was after the year 1995 as far as he
remembered. It could be 1997-98 but he could not remember without seeing the
documents which he attested. He was satisfied with all the documentary evidence
of dividends produced before him by Sh. Ravi Aggarwal and only after seeing the
original counter foils of the dividend warrants and other original papers which
were mentioned in the returns showing income of Sujata Aggarwal. He did not
need any authority for any assessee for preparing his or her return. He did not
want to say anything about Sujata Aggarwal. He had no requirement to procure authority
from Sujata Aggarwal for preparing her returns in proper form. Further, it was
clarified that it was the presentation of the data in a proper form. His office
did not file the returns of Ravi Aggarwal HUF and Sujata Aggarwal HUF. He did
not know who filed the same.
38. PW7 did not
remember how had been his association with Ravi Aggarwal, he was known to him. He
did not enquire from Sh. Ravi Aggarwal nor there was nay necessity to ask him
as to who was filing his returns after getting prepared from him. He was not
preparing the personal returns of Sh. Ravi Aggarwal nor he was preparing the
returns of Varda Aggarwal or S.M. Aggaral HUF or the personal returns of his
parents. In 1988, Sh. Ravi Aggarwal and Sujata Aggarwal had come to one family
function in the house of some common friend where he met Sujata Aggarwal with
Ravi Aggarwal. He knew Ravi Aggarwal before 1988. He could not approximately
tell that it was prior 5, 10, 15 years to 1988 when he met Ravi Aggarwal. He
did not remember how he came to know Ravi Aggarwal. He did not remember if Sh.
Ravi Aggarwal paid him his service fees for preparing the returns by him.
39. PW8 R.N. Gupta
deposed that he knew Sh. S.M. Aggarwal and also Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal. They
belonged to his native land and he knew them for the last more than 40 years.
He had been giving them the services of Chartered Accountant. I used to charge nominal
fees from them. He had been filing returns in the name of S.M. Aggarwal &
Sons-HUF for the last about 10-15 years. Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal was a member
of HUF. The same HUF had been dissolved for the last more than 4 years. He did
not prepare any paper for dissolution of this HUF. He did not remember if he had
seen those papers as the matter was old. He could not say definitely how many
members this HUF comprised of. He did not have any record of said HUF with him
as the same had been taken by some persons who was sent by them. This was about
four years back after the HUF was dissolved. He did not remember what all
properties were reflected in HUF. He did not remember how much rental income
was coming from the said property. He stated that till the HUF existed, the
income never used to go any member/co-parcener in the HUF. However, after
dissolution the property the assets were divided as per their mutual consent.
He did not know in what way Sh. S.M. Aggarwal and Sh. Ravi Shankar Aggarwal
dissolved their assets and shared amongst the other co- parceners. He did not
remember how many bank accounts were there in the name of HUF. He also did not remember
any of the inter-se transactions of Ravi Aggarwal, personal accounts with HUF
and visaversa in relation to other co-parceners. C-246, Defence Colony was HUF
property which had been allotted to Mr. S.M. Aggarwal after the dissolution of
HUF about four years back. He did not remember whether the HUF had commercial
flats in Antarikish Bhaan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He did not remember if
there were other properties in Jangpura, Lajpat Nagar in the HUF. The House at
Shanti Niketan had no relation with HUF. The house belonged to S.M. Aggarwal
and Shyama Devi which had already been sold long back. This property had no
relation with HUF. He denied the suggestion that the Shanti Niketan house was
HUF property and it was fetching Rs. 10 lacs rent which was coming to HUF. He
admitted that Shyama Devi was also one of the members of HUF in the returns
filed by him. Vol. the returns did not mention the names of members of HUF. He
could not say if Sujata Aggarwal and Vardha Aggarwal were also members of the
said HUF. He did not know what share Sujata Aggarwal and Vardha Aggarwal got
after dissolution of Surajmal & Sons HUF. He did not approach Sh. S.M.
Aggarwal to hand over the papers which were summoned to be produced before the
court. He denied the suggestion that he had not brought the papers intentionally
at the instance of S.M. Aggarwal and Ravi Shankar Aggarwal or intentionally he
was not disclosing the details of the entire assets and income of HUF.
40. During
cross-examination PW8 stated that he did not have meeting with S.M. Aggarwal or
any member of the family since he had received the summons. He stated that he
had professional contacts even after dissolution with Sh. S.M. Aggarwal and
Ravi Aggarwal. They used to bring the papers and after preparing the returns he
used to return it back. He had never filed the returns. They used to file
themselves.
41. The respondent has
led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW1/A reiterating the averments
made in the reply. He stated that the petitioner withdrew from the company of
the respondent without any reasonable cause and excuse and left the matrimonial
home on 11.11.1994 on her own without the consent of husband and the family and
sincere persuasions had no effect in changing the mind of the petitioner wife.
He stated that when all the persuasions of the respondent failed to bring back
the petitioner to join the company of the respondent and perform her matrimonial
obligation, he filed a divorce petition in which the petitioner had levelled
false and frivolous allegations of character assassination without any proof
and caused a great mental cruelty to the respondent in body, mind and
reputation. Further to harm his reputation, the petitioner sent copies of the
written reply of the matrimonial suit to the near relations in order to lower
his reputation in the eyes of his relatives knowing fully well that the
accusations were false to her knowledge. She also filed the present proceedings
on her behalf as well as on behalf of her daughter on the set of same
accusations and she was already getting maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month as
per the order of the Hon'ble High Court. PW1 further stated that the present
petition was filed only to misuse of the process of law and and had been filed
only to pressurize the respondent to part with the share of the properties in
his own name which was the sole object of her leaving the matrimonial house and
living separately since 11.11.1994 with her parents. He stated that the
petitioner who is highly educated is not sitting idle in the house and has been
looking after the prosperous business of her father and had been engaged in commercial
activities and had been earning about Rs. 20,000/- per month by associating
herself in the boutique business of her sister. She had herself admitted in her
statement on 08.05.2001 before the Learned Registrar General, High Court that
she had gold jewellery worth Rs. 5.7 lacs and locker in the bank. He stated
that he never treated the petitioner with cruelty and had at no stage neglected
to maintain her and it was the petitioner who had withdrawn from the company of
the respondent and refused to perform her matrimonial obligations. He was a
caring husband and respected the petitioner but the extra ordinary interest of
the petitioner in her father's business gradually and gradually engrossed her
far away from her matrimonial house and she filed innumerable cases in various
courts against the respondent only to harass the respondent and his family. He
stated that he had been paying interim maintenance to the petitioner. He is
associated with Just Environment (Charitable Trust) and is paid Rs. 40,000/-
per month for utilizing his expertise as an Environmentalist. He has placed on
record documents to that effect. He stated that HUF of which he was a
coparcener, was dissolved on 18.07.2005 and as a result of partition property
No. MB-10 & MB-11 in Antriksh Bhavan had fallen in his share. He stated
that he had been incurring expenses of his daughter and providing best
education to her and he paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- for providing coaching
classes for appearing in the entrance test for medical education. However, she
could not qualify but she was willing to pursue her medical education. The
respondent had arranged a sum of Rs. 25 lacs from various sources and gave
donation to Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad and got her admitted n Management
Quota. He stated that his father had been paying a sum of Rs. 3,56,000/- every
year by cheque towards tuition fees and hostel charges. In addition he had paid
a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the purchase of computer and had been paying various
amounts as demanded and required by his daughter in 2008 for purchase of
medical books etc and paid Rs. 2 lacs to her in compliance of order dt.
19.03.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court. He had also offered to pay a sum of
Rs. 70,000/- to the dentist for treatment of teeth problem of daughter Vardha
who had fallen down and broken her teeth. He had also deposited a sum of Rs.
3500/- in the account of his daughter towards the monthly pocket expenses and
as per the said order, the respondent was required to deposit the said amount
on monthly basis. He stated that the petitioner had left the matrimonial house
since 11.11.1994 of her own free will and had been living separately with her parents
without any reasonable cause.
42. I have heard the
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the respondent and perused the
record.
43. Written arguments
were also filed on behalf of petitioner which I have perused. It is argued that
the marriage was solemnized and a daughter was born from the wedlock. The
respondent was cruel to the petitioner and had failed in his legal duty to
maintain the petitioner and his daughter since her birth. It is argued that the
petitioner is totally dependent upon her parents for her maintenance. She had
been deserted and neglected by the respondent without any reasonable cause. It
is argued that the respondent had refused to live with the petitioner despite
several attempts to save her matrimonial life. He had illicit relations with
his girl friends which was one of the cause of deserting the petitioner whom
the respondent used to find most unattractive compared to his girl friends. He had
maintaining relationship with number of girls and had been very dis loyal
towards the petitioner. He filed the divorce petition against the petitioner
and pressurized the petitioner to get a mutual divorce to get rid of his moral
and legal liability. He had not paid any maintenance though he was a man of
means and was leading life of an affluent rich man and never cared for the sentiments
of the petitioner and lead an adulterous life overtly even without the
slightest shame.
44. It is argued that
the respondent is the only son of his parents besides having two married
sisters and one unmarried sister who was living in the matrimonial home at Golf
Link which was a palatial bunglow having almost all the luxuries. It is argued
that the respondent has immense unaccounted wealth movable and immovable assets
which he had been concealing from the income tax department by making
fictitious companies, opening benami accounts, making benami assessments. He
had two assessments done with the income tax department, one of them being by
Ravi (HUF). He had even filed returns in the name of the petitioner and used to
take signatures of petitioner on some forms and he was extremely demanding and
the petitioner could not dare to say no to any of the demands made by the
respondent. It is argued that the respondent is maintaining a separate rented
house at O-15, Jangpura Extension where he could freely indulge in adulterous
acts and also acquired another house in Jangpura where also he had telephone
installed. It is argued that the petitioner, her daughter and respondent are
the members of HUF by the name of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal & Sons which has a
commercial flat and two offices in the basement and he is running the company by
the name of Srishti where he is working with one girl Bharti Chaturvedi. The
respondent had rented out the basement and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month
as rent from the same. The house tax bills and receipts shows that the said
flats were in the name of Suraj mal & Sons. The respondent had also
installed a telephone in his name. It is argued that the respondent had also
acquired another flat under the name of Engineering Services and had started
another office at newly acquired property at Jangpura where he had been living
which is also near to the house of Ms. Bharti Chaturvedi. It is argued that he
also has two offices/flats in another multistorey buildig which are rented out
and he is getting income from the said flats. The respondent maintains a bar
having costliest bottles of whiskey and scotches and he possesses all luxuries
like cars, air conditioners, latest computers, printers, washing machines, fax
at home and offices etc. It is argued that the respondent and his family have
number of bank accounts details of which have been given.
It is argued that the
respondent in his reply to the application u/s 24 of HMA had concealed aboutthe
said accounts and properties. Other details are given regarding his income. It
is argued that after the filing of the divorce petition, the respondent and his
father had been transferring huge amounts from the account of respondent and
account of HUF to the accounts of Ms. Bina Aggarwal and to the account of
Shyama Devi. It is argued that there are withdrawals of more than Rs. 40 lacs
from the account of HUF and from Sh. S.M. Aggarwal in a year. It is argued that
it is apparent that the respondent was concealing his income as the deposits in
only one account were shown and his personal account was running above Rs. 15
lacs and there were withdrawals of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month from
accounts of respondent. It is argued that S.M. Aggarwal had been managing all
the financial aspects of the family and he had only disclosed the income which
could not be concealed and unaccounted income had been invested in properties
and deposits and shares. It is argued that if all the assets of the respondent
would be disclosed before the court, it would go to show that they were not
proportionate to the income revealed by the respondent in his income tax returns.
The HUF had purchased many properties which also had rental income including
house at Shanti Niketan and respondent before Ld. ADJ had admitted that his
family was getting rent of Rs. 10 lacs per month, besides his personal income
of Rs. 48,000/- stated by him. He had a farm house in his personal name or in
the name of HUF or in Benami name. His phone connections were stated and that
total telephone bills per month were Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. It is argued
that the respondent has been working as Environmental Consultant and working on
environmental issues for nearly 10 years and nobody was dependent upon him and
even his mother who is an illiterate lady and a house wife had income of more
than Rs. 50,000/- per month and filed income tax return and his father had
income of more than Rs. 10 lacs per month and was an income tax payee. The
respondent was the only son and the parents had executed a Will bequeathing all
the properties including the income arising out of the investments to him. The
petitioner had already filed a complaint before the income tax office for
filing returns in her name though he alleged that the petitioner left in 1994
and she had not filed any return nor signed any return or had ever visited the
income tax office or the office of Chartered Accountant. She had also filed the
case against the CA who had filed forged returns.
It is argued that the
respondent was also running a factory at Okhla Industrial Area and earning Rs. 1
lac per month profits from the same and the factory is worth crores of rupees.
It is argued that he had another factory and has entered into a collaboration
agreement with a British concern and was deriving additional income of Rs.
1,00,000/- from the said business. It is argued that he possesses credit cards
of various banks and he became the sole agent of multinational American company
and earned Rs. 30-40 lacs from the said company and was now acting as a
Permanent retainer/commission agent and getting one thousand US dollars besides
commission and other perks. It is argued that during her stay at matrimonial
home, lavish parties were arranged by the respondent. He was also earning from
photography assignments and had been holding exhibitions. He regularly came on
TV and had got Ashok Fellowship and is a member of various clubs and goes out
for foreign trips. He has a flat in Mumbai and house at Defence Colony and a
flat and shop in Jaipur which was sold. It is argued that he has a factory in
Sahibabad which is in partnership and he had also purchased a residential plot
at DLF and two flats in Sushant Lok which had been rented out. It is argued
that the respondent was dealing in Hawala with the help of his sister and brother-in-law
who are in abroad. He spent more than Rs. 20 lacs in the treatment of his
father. It is argued that the respondent and his parents are also running a
hospital and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from the same but the petitioner
and daughter had no immovable property and had no movable assets. The
petitioner was not aware about the fixed deposit or any other income nor had received
any income from any such deposit. It is argued that no person is dependent upon
the respondent. The respondent's father is working with Hindustan Times as an
Adviser and is Director of 10 Birla Companies and has high connections.
It is argued that the
entire jewellery was lying with the respondent and her clothing and other goods
were lying at Golf Link House. It is argued that the respondent has also
purchased shares of more than Rs. 60-70 lacs either in his name or in other
Benami names and number of times he used to take her signatures on share
transfer forms. The respondent had also opened PPF account and Benami accounts
in the name of petitioner and all the documents were lying with the respondent.
It is argued that to shirk his liabilities, the respondent and his family was
gradually disposing off immovable assets and he had also sold off one shop in
Daryaganj for a sum of Rs. 40 lacs. It is argued that the total income from HUF
is more than Rs. 60 lacs per month out of which respondent has a major share
but he never gave any pocket money to the petitioner and when she asked for any
money, he humiliated her and also used to encourage her to get money from her
parents. It is argued that on seeing the cruelties of the respondent, the
father-in-law for 8-10 months had been sending Rs. 10,000/- per month but on
the ill advice of the respondent and his threats, he stopped making the payment
and the petitioner was totally dependent upon her parents who did not keep well.
It is argued that the petitioner has a right to be maintained according to the
living standard of the respondent.
It is argued that the
petitioner is suffering from Tuberculosis and other serious ailments. She
cannot move about and has been advised complete bed rest. It is argued that the
respondent has not specifically denied the contents of the petition and has
relied upon the Section 24 HMA revision pending before Hon'ble High Court and
in evidence first time he told that the properties are of HUF. In his cross-
examination, he failed to produce the best documentary evidence in his
possession and failed to produce the Will of the mother who died during the
pendency of the case and all her assets and rental income had been awarded to
the respondent. It is argued that he stated that he is earning only Rs.
40,000/- per month but he was spending Rs. 40,000/- per month on the daughter
and paid Rs. 25 lacs for her admission in medical college and was paying Rs.
20,000/- per month to the petitioner. It is argued that as the interim
maintenance was not paid, the respondent cannot be heard.
45. The Ld. Counsel for
the respondent has argued that the petitioner has sufficient income of her own
and the present petition has been filed only to harass the respondent.
46. The present
petition has been filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: Section
125 (1) Cr.P.C.
If any person having
sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
a) his wife, unable to
maintain herself, or
b) his legitimate or
illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
c) his legitimate or
illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority,
where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury
unable to maintain itself; or
d) his father or
mother, unable to maintain himself or 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.
Under the said
provision the right to maintenance is circumscribed by certain factors which
are:
a) the relationship of
husband and wife/father and child should be proved
b) the husband/father
has neglected or refused to maintain his wife/child
c) the wife/child must
be unable to maintain herself/itself; and
d) the husband/father
must be having sufficient means.
47. In the instant
case, the marriage between the parties is not disputed and the petitioner had testified
that she was married to the respondent on 10.06.1987 according to Hindu rites
and ceremonies. It is also not in dispute that a daughter was born on
24.07.1989 and in her respect a separate petition for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.
P.C had been filed.
48. The next point of
consideration is whether the respondent had neglected or refused to maintain the
petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she was subjected to cruelty
and deserted and neglected by the respondent since 1994 and the respondent had
also failed to perform his duty to maintain the petitioner and their daughter.
The respondent had denied the same and it was averred that it was the
petitioner who choose to live with her parents to lookafter them and manage the
business of her father as she did not have any brother. It is also averred that
all the efforts of the respondent and his family to bring her back to the
matrimonial home after deserting in 1994 proved to be futile and thereafter
divorce petition was filed by the respondent which is pending. As per second
proviso of Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. if the husband offers to maintain his wife
on condition of her living with him and the wife refuses to live with him, then
she is not entitled to maintenance unless the Magistrate is satisfied that
there is just ground for refusal to live with the husband and Section 125 (4)
also provides that the wife shall not be entitled to receive maintenance if
without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband.
49. During cross
examination PW1 stated that she left the matrimonial home in 1994 but she did
not remember the exact date. No quarrel took place on that date. No quarrel
took place prior to that date. She stated that she left the house to stay in
house of her mother post Diwali and she did not go with any purpose. She just
went with a small bag and her small daughter thinking that she would go for a
few days. She came back several times. She did not stay there. She volunteered
that she was blackmailed that the respondent would fall from third floor and
commit suicide, she tried several times but could not and her in-laws asked her
not to stay on ground that respondent who is only son would go to America or
leave home. She stated that she did not know if she had stated about suicide etc
in her petition. She admitted that divorce petition is pending. She volunteered
that respondent had filed the same. She did not know if she had stated about
suicide etc. in divorce petition. She kept regularly meeting the respondent
till 1998. she volunteered that he used to come home till filing of petition.
They did not have good relations till 1998. She volunteered that he was having
affair with Bharti. She had filed case for maintenance for her daughter's
maintenance, for property. She had no idea if she had filed 23 petitions
against the respondent. She had a Degree of Law and was English Hon. Student.
Volunteered she had not practiced. She had no idea how many petitions
respondent had filed against her. She had no idea if respondent had only filed
divorce and custody petition. She had not really read the petitions before
filing the same. She volunteered that she was very unwell for seven years and
she knew she was signing affidavit. She had read the divorce petition and then signed
the written statement. Volunteered it was the biggest shock for her.
50. PW1 denied the suggestion
that she had made wild and false allegations against the character of respondent.
She denied the suggestion that she had not given date, time, month and year of
the allegations made by her or the names of girls. Volunteered she had stated
name of Bharti Chaturvedi. She admitted that Bharti was his Secretary and
worked in his office. Volunteered they worked together in NGO. She denied the
suggestion that except working in office, respondent had no relation with the
said lady nor with any other lady or that she levelled such allegations as she
had left the matrimonial home and did not want to live there. She stated that
she had not reported about illicit relations of her husband to the police. She
had not informed her relatives by letters about that. Volunteered she had
telephonic conversations. She denied the suggestion that she did not write the letters
to this effect as no such things took place. PW1 further stated that before
marriage they had shops at Airport (3). she admitted that she was leading a
luxurious life before marriage. She denied the suggestion that after marriage
as respondent could not afford the luxurious life, so she left the matrimonial
home. Volunteered she had led a very good life in matrimonial home. She denied
the suggestion that she had no reason to leave. Volunteered he was womanising
and even that day she was ready to go back. She denied that she had withdrawn
from the company of respondent without any reasonable cause and excuse or she
had sufficient reasons to maintain herself. She stated that she did not lodge
any report to the effect that her husband had threatened her to commit suicide
by jumping from third floor and to leave for America. She stated that he did
not tell which third floor he referred to. She denied the suggestion that there
was no reason for her leaving the house infact she did not leave the house. She
further denied the suggestion that since she wanted to manage the shops of her
father at International Airport at the relevant time and she had to go there during
the night also, that is why she left the matrimonial house.
51. During
cross-examination PW5 stated that her parents separated in 1994. She was only
five years old. She stayed with her mother since then. She signed the petition
after reading it. She had signed the petition on her personal knowledge.
Volunteered her mother told her not to show any hatred towards her father. She
stated that as she was five years old, she did not know as to whether any fight
took place between her parents and till date in her presence no quarrel took
place. Her father used to come to her Nana's house till she was 20 years. She
stated that she had no relationship with her father, so there was no question
of maltreating by him. She admitted that her petition and her mother's petition
are verbatim the same. She denied the suggestion that there was no personal knowledge
of her and it was on the basis of the petition filed by her mother. She denied
the suggestion that she was deposing falsely and her father had never refused any
maintenance to her. She volunteered that she had never asked for the same prior
to the filing of the present petition. She admitted that she had been residing
with her mother of her free will.
52. PW1 and PW5 were
also extensively cross-examined regarding maintenance being paid to PW5 i.e the
daughter and regarding the respondent incurring expenses towards her admission
in college and paying for her books and other expenses. However, that need not
be gone into the present petition in view of the fact that a separate petition
had been filed for the daughter.
53. During
cross-examination RW1 Ravi Shankar Aggarwal stated that he was on talking terms
with his father-in-law in 1994. He used to discuss about his business and all
matters as a member of the family. He stated that by family matters he meant
what did he eat, about his health etc. He did not remember if he ever discussed
about the said shops with his father-in-law as he was aware of the said shops.
He was also aware that his wife was doing night duty in the said shops. He did
not know which particular shop his wife used to go on any particular day but it
was either in the domestic or international terminal. He had discussed about
the said issue with his father-in-law. He discussed the problems of his wife
doing night duty and spending long hours since his child was very young. He
stated that those were the years 1992-1994. Volunteered after that his wife
deserted him. Is wife used to drive a car and used to go the Airport of her
own. She sometimes used to go with his father-in-law. He also might have left
her sometimes to drop her at the Airport for her night duty. He did not
remember when he used to leave her but he was supporting her as and when she
needed to leave for the Airport. He stated that he had very cordial relations
with his wife at that time when he used to leave her. He denied the suggestion
that during that period hhis father-in-law had suffered a heart attack.
However, his father-in-law did suffer heart attack, He was only aware of one heart
attack which his father-in-law suffered in beginning of 1995. He used to care
for his father-in-law. After his wife deserted him, they had no desire to keep
any contact with him. He had a desire to visit his father-in-law while he was
ailing because of heart attack in the hospital but he was not allowed to visit.
The family of his father-in-law did not allow him to visit him. He was asked
not to come. He did not remember who told him not to come, there were many
relatives in the hospital but he did not recollect with whom did he talk. His
father met his father-in-law to discuss about his wife returning to the
matrimonial home and this was later when his father-in-law had recovered from
the heart attack. He was not aware if any of his family members visited his
father-in-law when he suffered a heart attack. He denied the suggestion that in
1993, his father-in-law had a mild heart attack. He admitted that he used to
visit his father-in-law in 1993 and he as a family member used to visit him and
helped him as son-in-law in whatever way he could. He admitted that he never stopped
Sujata from helping her father at the time of his illness but he objected to
her working long hours and night hours in his business since the same effected
his family. He denied the suggestion that it was only on two occasions when
Sujata helped her father in his business. He denied the suggestion that the
said two occasions were when her father was unwell in the year 1993. He denied the
suggestion that he himself on both the said occasions dropped Sujata to the
Airport for working as her father was not well. The incidents when he left
Sujata to Airport on occasions as mentioned by him the reason could be anything
like she was not having a car or she was getting late etc which could be any
reasons. He could not say if father-in-law was not well could be a reason for
dropping her to the Airport. Volunteered she went there regularly and going
there had nothing to do with her father's health regularly, he meant 4-5 times
a week.
54. RW1 further stated
that he could not tell the name of any class teacher of his daughter from class
Ist to class 12th. Vol. he was not allowed to meet her. He knew the subject she
was studying. She was studying Biology & Science. She was also a football
player. He had filed a case in Tis Hazari Court for visitation rights and for
custody of the child but other than that he had no documentary evidence to show
that he was not allowed to meet the child. He did not remember all the facts
which he mentioned in the petition that he was not allowed to meet the child.
However, he had stated all the facts in his petition. The petition was filed
about 7-8 years back. He pressed for the visitation rights but the daughter did
not want to meet him. The court did not grant him visitation rights ever as is daughter did not want to meet him but after
she became major she had been meeting him regularly.
He stated that lastly
he met his daughter one day before her birthday i.e on 23.07.2009. He denied the
suggestion that he never desired to meet his daughter and therefore never
insisted for any visitation right for his daughter. She made a statement
against him in the court, he believed that she was instigated by her mother. He
could not produce that statement. He denied the suggestion that no such
statement was made by his daughter. He admitted that his daughter had extreme
love for him. She had never shown any desire to live with him and therefore he
could not admit or deny such suggestion that she wanted to live with him. Vol.
she had filed cases against him in the Hon'ble High Court and the lower courts
despite his supporting her financially fully as well as getting her admission
into medical college. He stated that he could say only after discussing with
his daughter that he could live with her as currently she was studying
medicines in Santosh Medical College. He denied the suggestion that he had
given a statement in the custody case that his daughter has become young and
being a female it was risky to staying his home. Volunteered there was no
female member in his family to lookafter her as his mother was ill lady. He
could not say whether he withdrew the said case but after seeing the attitude
of his daughter he did not press for the same. He did not remember if his
daughter filed an application in the divorce case that she wanted to live with him
at Defence Colony and study under the guidance of her father or that he refused
her said offer. He admitted that he would not be able to answer questions
pertaining to his daughter vis a vis divorce cases. Volunteered she had filed
so many cases against him and it was not possible for in to remember the
proceedings in all the case. He could not even remember all the cases filed by
his daughter against him. Volunteered he could produce list of the same.
55. Other than that the
respondent was mainly cross-examined regarding his assets. The respondent was
cross-examined about knowing about the class teacher of his daughter and about
visiting his daughter and her desire to live with him but again the same need
not be gone into the present case as separate petition was filed by the
daughter for maintenance.
It is thus seen that
the petitioner during her cross-examination has reiterated about the respondent
having relations with other women and she had taken the name of one Bharti
Chaturvedi as well. Though there is neither any independent witness nor
anything else to support the contention that the respondent was having affair
with Bharti yet, this is the main allegation of the petitioner and the alleged
ground for leaving the respondent. Both PW1 and PW5 had stated that there was
no quarrel but the petitioner has stated about relations of respondent with
other women. The respondent had denied the said allegations and had tried to
contend that the petitioner had left as she wanted to look after the business
of her family and he was extensively cross- examined regarding the same. But from
his cross-examination as well and from the cross-examination of the petitioner,
it cannot be said that the petitioner had left the respondent because she
wanted to look after the business of her father. While respondent was
cross-examined regarding looking after the daughter even after separation in
1994, it is pertinent that nothing has come on record to show that the
respondent had paid any maintenance to the petitioner except what the
petitioner had stated about some amount being paid by the father-in-law to her
for some period and what was paid subsequent to orders of courts. Even the
allegations made by the petitioner have not been specifically denied by the respondent.
Accordingly, looking to the material on record, the respondent had clearly
refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner and there is nothing to show
that the petitioner was not subjected to the behaviour as stated by her.
56. It is the case of
the respondent that the petitioner has sufficient assets of her own and she is capable
of looking after herself and does not require maintenance. During
cross-examination PW1 denied the suggestion that even before leaving the house,
she used to work in shop of her father at Airport during day time or night or
till date she was working there. She volunteered that the shop was closed 13
years ago. She denied the suggestion that till the shop was there, she was
working there and then she was working elsewhere. She admitted that respondent
had been sending her maintenance. Vol it was a pittance being Rs. 15,000/- for
her and her daughter (the same was objected to by Ld. Counsel for petitioner on
the ground that thee period is vague). She admitted that her daughter was
admitted to Medical college. She did not know how much donation was paid. She did
not know her fees. The respondent was paying the fees. She had no idea that he
paid Rs. 25 lakhs as donation to get her admitted to Medical School or he was
paying about Rs. 3 lakhs per year as tuition fees. She denied the suggestion
that besides she was getting expenses from respondent. Volunteered she had to
make 29 sms and 50 calls to get through to him. She was questioned that being
mother she did not pay so much attention to child that she did not know her
fees and who paid and she replied that she was so mentally upset and her
daughter was directly in touch with her father. She further denied the
suggestion that she worked at the shop of her father or was earning Rs.
30-35,000/- per month. Volunteered even shares were with respondent. She stated
that she is an Income Tax assessee. Volunteered respondent used to manage
everything and she did not file any return herself. She could not say the
amount of Income Tax as she was never concerned with financial side and she
never filed the returns. She had no idea whatsoever that she used to sign the same
after reading the same being educated. She admitted that she had filed an
appeal against the interim order passed by this court which was dismissed. She
went to Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order. She denied the suggestion
that the SLP had also been dismissed. She admitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had given directions to the court to dispose off the matter within 3 months
from the date of receipt of the order by this court but no enhancement of the
current maintenance was passed. She admitted that the respondent had invested
the money in her name in the form of shares and Mutual funds etc. She denied
the suggestion that they were in her possession till that day. Vol. they were
with him. She denied that she was receiving any dividend from them. Volunteered
they were coming earlier in her bank account but after filing of divorce case,
it was stopped. She denied the suggestion that she had been receiving the
dividends but not depositing in her account in order to conceal her interest.
57. PW2 had produced statement
of account of the petitioner and he had also brought bank deposit slips.
58. During
cross-examination RW1 stated that he had no evidence to show about the income
of his wife but he believed she had been working in her sister's and father's
business besides the maintenance which he had been providing to her. He also
understood that she had income from investments which she made details of which
had been mentioned in his affidavit beyond that he was not aware of any other
income. He stated that he had mentioned this fact in his affidavit but not in
his reply. He did not have any documentary evidence to substantiate that his
wife was earning. He had specifically mentioned the details of the investment
in the name of Sujata Aggarwal in his affidavit which could be verified. He
mentioned the said fact in Para 4 of his affidavit but he could not produce any
documentary proof. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false affidavit
and he falsely stated that his wife is earning. He stated that he had cordial
relations with D.P. Bansal but he had not met him since long. He could not say
when did he last meet him. He stated that the shares relating to his wife's
name were with her. He was not aware if his income tax, property records and
his wife's records were maintained by Sh. D.P. Bansal. He never gave any file
to Sh. D.P. Bansal in relation to his income tax or his wife's income tax so
there was no question of taking it back from D.P. Bansal.
59. RW1 further stated
that he could not give the details of the shops which he mentioned in Para 1 of
the affidavit belonging to petitioner's father from where she used to derive
income. He was not aware if there was only one shop at Airport which was taken
or tendered by petitioner's father who was running a book shop and which had to
be surrendered as the contract was over about 15-20 years back. He stated that
to his knowledge there were three shops. He was questioned that he wrongly
stated that there were three shops to which he answered he did not know when the
said shops stopped functioning but they were there when his wife deserted him.
He did not enquire after 1994 as to what happened to the said shops and whether
they were still functional. He was not aware of the current status of the said
shops. He did not have any knowledge if his father-in-law had faced Public
Premises Act proceedings in respect of said shops which were still pending.
60. It is thus seen
that the respondent had stated about the petitioner deriving income from the shops
of her father but during cross- examination he himself stated that he did not
enquire after 1994 what happened to the said shops or whether the said shops
were still functioning and he himself was not aware about the present status of
the shops. There is also nothing else on record to show that there was any
income from the said shop to the petitioner. The petitioner herself has produced
her statement of account and even the same shows very little balance and the
respondent has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the
petitioner has any other income from dividends or interest or shares, as were
sought to be contended. As such only bare averments have been made in that
regard and there is nothing to show that the petitioner has any income as contended
by the respondent. The burden of proof has been discharged by the petitioner.
It is thus irrefutable that the petitioner is entirely dependent for her
maintenance and subsistence on the respondent. As such the petitioner is the
prime responsibility of the respondent and he is under moral and legal duty to
prevent her from vagrancy and from being left at the mercy of destiny. Being the
husband of the petitioner the respondent cannot be absolved of his liability to
maintain the petitioner.
61. It was for the
respondent to prove that he did not have sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.
There is nothing to show that the respondent suffers from any infirmity or
disability either mental or physical, the respondent is accordingly an able
bodied man capable of earning and has a legal and moral duty to maintain and
support the petitioner.
62. The quantum of
liability however has to be seen. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are
quasi criminal and extent of proof required is not of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'
but the parties are required to prove their respective cases by 'preponderance
of probabilities'. It is also the settled law that the petitioner shall be
entitled to receive such maintenance as is consistent with the life style and
standard of living of the respondent. In 110 (2004) DLT 546 the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi has held that "even half of the amount of earnings of the
respondent can be granted as maintenance to the petitioner and criteria of
1/3rd or 1/5th income of respondent need not be followed for grant of
maintenance to petitioner"
63. It is the case of
the petitioner that the respondent has various sources of income, properties
and is leading a lavish life. This was denied by the respondent and he stated
that his only income was from an NGO.
64. During
cross-examination PW1 admitted that respondent was running an NGO. Volunteered
he was doing other things and was running factory and had international
business. She had no idea that income of respondent from NGO is Rs. 30,000/-
per month. She denied the suggestion that apart from this respondent had no
income as stated by her in petition or all that she had stated about income was
frivolous. Volunteered she had given proof of everything. Thus the petitioner
had admitted that the respondent is running an NGO but she had also volunteered
that he is doing other things and running a factory and had international
business.
66. PW3 had produced
various statements of account of the respondent and during cross-examination
PW4 admitted that the account was closed on 18.02.2002. thereafter there was no
account of Engineering Services. PW6 had produced the record of property at
Okhla Industrial Area.
67. During
cross-examination PW7 admitted that whenever Ravi Aggarwal used to come to him
for getting returns, he used to bring the documents alongwith him after getting
it prepared he used to take the documents as well as prepare return for signing
and filing in the Income Tax Department. He stated that he never filed the
returns on behalf of Ravi and Sujata Aggarwal or any person from his family nor
his office had filed the return on behalf of the said persons nor accompanied
them for filing the same in the Income Tax Department. He stated that he used
to prepare the return on the basis of the documents supplied by Ravi Aggarwal
and after preparing the same, the returns were handed over to them for signing
and filing. Ravi Aggarwal not his family members signed in his presence on the
returns got prepared by him. He did not have any documents pertaining to those persons.
68. During
cross-examination PW8 stated that he did not have any meeting with S.M.
Aggarwal or any member of the family since he had received the summons. He had
professional contacts even after dissolution with Sh. S.M. Aggarwal and Ravi Aggarwal.
He stated that they used to bring the papers and after preparing the returns he
used to return it back. He had never filed the returns. They used to file
themselves. Thus both PW7 and PW8 stated that they did not file the returns for
the respondent or his family members. However, it is significant that PW7 had
stated about respondent getting returns of petitioner prepared by him.
69. During
cross-examination RW1 stated that he mentioned all the facts which he had
stated in his affidavit in his reply to the application u/s 125 Cr. P.C and
were disclosed to his lawyer while drafting the reply. He could not say whether
everything which he mentioned in his affidavit was mentioned in his reply. He
could not compare them like this. He denied the suggestion that he made a false
statement that the contents of his affidavit had been mentioned in his reply.
He stated that he had not mentioned about all his properties belonging to him,
their rental incomes in his reply to Section 125 Cr. P.C but he had mentioned
so in his affidavit. There was an HUF of his father by the name of S.M.
Aggarwal and Sons but he did not know the status of that HUF. He was not aware
if he, Sujata and his daughter were members of his father's HUF. He did not
know who all were the members of the said HUF as it was his father's HUF. He
did not have any papers in relation to the said HUF of his father because the
said HUF was of his father (same was objected by the Ld Defence Counsel as it
did not relate to the property of the respondent). He did not know what
properties belonged to the said HUF and still belonged to the said HUF and
about their rental income and status or the income derived out of the HUF. He
was not getting any HUF income from the said HUF. His father had given him two
basements in MB10 and MB-11 of Antriksh Bhawan of 500 Sq. feet each to him. He
did not remember the date when he got the said properties from his father but it
was in recent past. He could not recall the exact date, it must be about 2-3
year back. There was no occasion for him to inform about his getting the said
properties from his father to any court when they were given to him. He knew
Sh. D.P. Bansal. He was a Chartered Accountant. He dealt with him in the past
to take advice relating to his financial matters as well. His wife was also
taking advice from him relating to her financial matters. He stated that he was
not aware if his father was also taking advice from him. He used to file his
returns. Again said, he used to make his returns which he used to file. He did
not remember exactly but he used to file returns of Sujata his wife on some
occasions as far as his memory goes. After 11.11.2004 he did not know how
Sujata had been dealing with her financial matters. He and Sujata jointly used
to deal with Sh. D.P. Bansal for preparing returns and for occasionally filing
returns before 11.11.2004.
70. RW1 admitted that
all the documents relating to his properties and his income were in his possession.
His mother passed away in 2006. She left a Will but he was not aware of the
contents of the Will, date of the Will. He never asked his father about the
said will. He stated that he was not aware which were the properties owned by
his mother. He admitted that there was a house at Shanti Niketan but he did not
remember the address and that belonged to his mother. He did not know whether
it was let out to an Embassy and fetching a rent of Rs. 10 lacs per month. He
denied the suggestion that the rental income was coming to him after the death
of his mother. He stated that the house had been sold as far as he was aware.
He did not know when it was sold. He was not aware of the sale consideration or
any other details of the income which was coming from the said house. He did
not know where the sale proceeds had gone since he was not the owner of the
house. There was no challenge to the Will of his mother by any of the legal
heirs. Other than his father, he did not know who all knew the Will of his
mother and distribution of her assets and income but he did not know. He was
living with his father at C-246, Defence Colony, New Delhi which belonged to
his father. He did not know if the property was HUF property. He had a share in
Defence Colony property as he was a member of his father's HUF. He did not know
the percentage of his share. He did not interfere in the HUF accounts of his
father or any other accounts of his parents and therefore he could not tell the
details of his share in all these. He had very good relations with his father.
He cared for him and looked after him. He stated that it was possible that the
address of the house at Shanti Niketan was 5/11 and it was a bungalow measuring
1,000 Sq. Yards. He denied the suggestion that the house at Shanti Niketan had
been bequeathed by his mother to him alone and he was getting an income of Rs.
10 lac from the said property after the death of his mother. He could not
produce the Will of his mother because it was not in his possession. He could
not produce any titled documents or lease deeds in respect of the said property
as they were not in his possession. He was questioned whether he could procure
this document from his father for perusal of the court which was dis-allowed.
71. RW1 denied the
suggestion that he was intentionally not producing the said documents as they reflected
his actual income and assets. He admitted that MB-10, and MB-11, Antriksh
Bhawan, CP were in his name and he was in possession of documents relating to
them. Volunteered they were vacant and un-rented properties. They had never
been rented out. They were storage basements and not used for any other
purpose. He did not purchase the said properties but had been given to him by
his father. He was not aware if it was his father who was the owner or his HUF.
He did not remember if any gift deed was executed in his name by his father. He
believed that his father had dissolved his HUF and gave the said two properties
to him. He did not remember the documentation executed between him and his
father in relation to distribution of properties to him by him. He was having
the said documents with him as he had filed them in his income tax returns. He
did not mention about the said properties in his reply. He denied the
suggestion that both the said flats had been rented out since they were
purchased and he was getting the income from them. Volunteered he had never
received any income from the same as they had never been rented out since they
came into his possession. He was not using the said flats but they were in his
possession. He admitted that he is running an NGO by the name of Toxic Links
which gets funds from various sources like Govt. of India and various other
funding agencies like Sweden Ford Foundation etc. He could not give the details
of the funding agencies which was governed by Board of Governors. His income
was Rs. 40,000/- from this NGO before tax. He was the Director of the said NGO.
Th NGO maintains its own accounts. He did all his duties as a Director which
included overall responsibilities in all aspect. He stated that he was
associated with an NGO called Shrishti. He was only a volunteer in that
organization. It must be around 2-3 years. It must be mid 90s when he was associated
with this NGO. Occasionally for a short time part of the basement was used.
Volunteer to function from the said basements occasionally. He could not
remember his income when he filed his reply to the present case. His income had
remained more or less which he was drawing then. There was a marginal increase
as his organization decided to increase his monthly honorarium. He did not remember
the exact time but it must be two years back when the increase was there in his
income. He had mentioned his details of income alongwith returns annexed. He
denied the suggestion that flat No.1008, Antriksh Bhawan, CP belongs to him. He
did not know if the said flat belonged to his father's said HUF. However, he
admitted that flat No.1001, Antriksh Bhawan belonged to his father's HUF in
which he was a member. He admitted that he was t he proprietor of Engineering Services.
The said firm had been in existence for about 10-15 years. He stated that he
was doing professional Engineering Consultancy by the name of the said firm and
he was earning out of it. He was not aware how much he was earning from the
said firm but the same was reflected in the Income Tax returns. The Income Tax
returns of the year 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and all his other Income Tax
returns till date included the income of Engineering Services as well. He
admitted that he had not given the details of his income in his affidavit but
the documents annexed with his affidavit reflects the same. He was asked if it
was correct that he was having a factory at S-11, Phase-II, Electronic Estate,
Okhla to which he answered he was not having the factory. He had transferred
the said factory to somebody else.
72. RW1 further stated
that he never run any industry from S-11, Phase-II, Okhla. He was in manufacturing
business. He manufactured TV components for about 6-7 years. In mid 90s the
said factory was closed owing to losses. The factory was run at Okhla. It was
in C-66, Okhla. This property S-111 was never used for production and C-66 was
rented premises. He did not remember what was the rent being paid by the
private limited company. The name of the company was Tuner and Devices Pvt.
Ltd. He was one of the Directors of the said company. He denied the suggestion that
he was still manufacturing and running company and was earning more than Rs. 2
lacs per month. He was having possession of all the papers relating to the said
company, the manufacturing done in the said company and the date when he closed
the said company. He stated that it was not necessary for him to produce the
records of the company as his personal income from the said company was
reflected in the documents of his income tax returns which were already there
on record. The company had closed down in mid 90s and thereafter he did not
have any income from that company. He admitted that the company had been filing
income tax returns. He stated that it was not necessary for him to produce the
said returns as the company was already closed down. His mother and himself
were the Directors of the company and as the company was in loss it was closed down.
There were no assets received by him from the said company as it was running in
loss. He denied the suggestion that he received Rs. 80 lacs from the same and
that was the reason he was not producing the documents. He stated that property
H-2 Jangpura Extension, belonged to his father as HUF had been dissolved and it
belonged to his father. He did not know how the said property had been
transferred to his father. He did not execute any document to transfer the said
property in his father's name. Vol. a dissolution deed was executed. RW1 stated
that the documents were registered before Sub-Registrar but he did not remember
the details. Volunteered what was legally required was done. He did not
remember which Registrar he had visited. He did not remember who all visited
the Sub-Registrar. He did not remember who all accompanied him when the
documents were registered before Sub-Registrar. He did not remember how much
expenses were incurred for transferring the properties and for registering the
said documents. He did not remember whose services his father took for
executing the said documents. Other than the documents which he had filed with
his affidavit i.e dissolution deed, he did not have any other document which
were registered for transfer. He was not aware whether any other document
existed or not.
73. RW1 stated that
Toxic Links an NGO in which he is a Director was running its office from, H-2, Jangpura
Extension. It was 200 Sq. Yards Bungalow. It was a two storied house and also
had a basement. He denied the suggestion that he operated from the said
property. It was the NGO which operated in the basement and ground floor from
the said property. He personally sat there being a Director. The said NGO was
operating in the said property since 2000-2001. He did not disclose the said
fact in his affidavit or his reply as it had nothing to do with his income. He
stated that as he had already stated his father's HUF had been dissolved, he
did not remember the date but the documents had been filed. He admitted that
there was another property i.e O-15 Jangpura where he was staying, it was a
rental property. He stayed in that property upto 2002. Again said 2003 or 2004.
He did not remember the name of the owner. Rent was about few thousands of
rupees but he did not remember the exact rent. It was about Rs.4-5,000/-.
During that period his mother was unwell and was staying at 111, Golf Links.
There was no place in the said house for him to stay as there a medical team
was staying at his parents' house so he was living separately in the said
rental property. He was paying the rent from his own sources. He had his
personal property at Ghaziabad which he took from Ansal Property. He did not
know when he purchased the property, it was about 15 years back. He did not
remember the consideration when and for how much he purchased the said property.
It was sold about 10 years back. He did not remember in how much did he sell
it. He had reflected the same in his personal Income Tax account. He did not
know if he was in possession of any documents relating to that property. It
must be in Ansal Property books. He would have to trace out. The same was not
relevant to his current income so therefore he felt no need to produce the
same. He stated that he had been deriving income from his photography hobby
which was in few thousands. He had been invited to hold exhibition by various
museums who recognized his work in India as well as abroad which was on non
commercial basis. He exhibited his photography skill in Germany, Switzerland,
India and England. He had not gone to the said countries but they invited his work
which he sent there. It was about 3-4 times over last few years. He had not
visited the said countries for exhibition purpose but he had gone to the said
countries as Director of the NGO and in charge of his duties. He was questioned
which foreign countries had he visited in his personal capacity or on behalf of
NGO and for how many times and for how much length and he answered that all his
visits were part of discharge of his duties as Director of his organization and
had no relevance to his income and therefore he could not answer the said
question as it was a part of his official duty. Therefore, he need not to
disclose the said information and answer the question. He denied the suggestion
that he remained about 8 months outside the countries in various other countries
in a year. He remained for 95 % of his time in India. He stated that he has a
passport. He had a Maruti Esteem. He had Maruti Gypsy earlier. All his expenses
on his foreign travel were borne by his NGO including his stay in foreign
countries as a part of discharge of his duties for the NGO work. He denied the
suggestion that the NGO was spending Rs. 20-30 lacs on his foreign visits. He could
not say how much they were spending. He could not produce the account of NGO.
He had no authority how much funds the NGO was receiving as it was not related
to his income in the present case. He was questioned who was maintaining the
account of his NGO to which he answered he could not disclose the names of the
employees of NGO who were maintaining the accounts of NGO. He could not
disclose the funds received by the NGO per annum. Vol. the NGO filed all
required legal returns to all the authorities in the Govt. The NGO had a
governing body which made decisions about the NGO. He could not provide any
information regarding the NGO. He was questioned if he had gone through the
records to which he answered as part of his duty as director. It was his function
to be responsible for filing of all the returns for the NGO but he had no
authority to produce them. He stated that he did not hold any exhibition. He
was invited to send his work in an exhibition in London in December, 2008.
74. RW1 admitted that
there was some land in Chhatarpur but he did not know about the ownership of
the said land as it did not belong to him. He knew one Sh. Nand Kishore who was
a friend/relative of their family. He was not aware if Sh. Nand Kishore and his
late mother had 15 acres farm house land at Chhatarpur. He visited that land 20
years back but he had not visited since then. He did not know if Sujata his
wife had been visiting the said land with his mother during her life time on regular
basis. He was not aware if Sujata and his mother used to get vegetables grown
on the said land during their visits for the house. Volunteered he had no
ownership of the land and he had never had any income out of that land. He was
questioned to whom that land had been bequeathed by his mother to which he
answered he was not aware of the past or current ownership of the said land. He
visited that land accompanying his mother. He visited with her because she
desired to go there. He was further questioned why did she desire to go there
and he answered he could not answer the question. He did not know if she had
any connection with the said land. He was questioned that the land at
Chhattarpur belonged to his mother and Nand Kishore and after her death his
mother had bequeathed that property exclusively to him and he was the owner of
said 15 acres land/farm house bequeathed by his mother to him to which he
answered he was not aware of the ownership of the land. He denied the
suggestion that he had the said land in his name.
75. RW1 was questioned
if it was correct that there were two commercial flats in Naurang House, Connaught
Place, belonging to S.M. Aggarwal and HUF which now belonged to him and he
denied that there was any property in Naurang House belonging to him. The said
HUF had been resolved and he did not get any property in Naurang House. RW1
stated that he was not aware who had got the said property in Naurang house. He
stated that his father had not told him about any such property. He was not
aware of his mother's assets while she was alive and he had no income from any
of it. He volunteered that question regarding his mother's assets were
irrelevant to his income. He denied the suggestion that the said flats belonged
to his father's HUF and his mother was having a share in it and that the same
had been bequeathed to him after the death of his mother. He was not aware
where Naurang House was. The said flats No. 2H & 2Y were not in his name
and they had never been in his name nor he had any income from that. He could
not even tell the status, income from the said flats nor the current status. He
did not recall if any 'Havan' ceremony took place at Flat No. 1008, Antriksh
Bhawan. Volunteered he was not aware of Flat No. 1008. He was not aware if any
telephone number in his firm's name Engineering Services was installed in flat
No.1008, Antriksh Bhawan. He could not recall if bill shown at page 197 in the
paper book was his telephone bill pertaining to his flat No. 1008. Volunteered
flat No.1001 was the flat owned by his family. He was further questioned that
the statement of accounts filed on record shows transfer of huge amounts from
his account to S.M. Aggarwal HUF account and vice versa to which he answered
both his personal accounts and his father's HUF account till it existed were
assessed under the Income Tax. The said question was irrelevant to his income.
He was shown the photocopy of statement of account of Surajmal & Sons which
showed that a sum of Rs. 154121/- had been transferred from his account to the
account of Surajmal & Sons bearing No. 05064 and was questioned why the
said amount was transferred to which he answered he could not authenticate a
photocopy nor could he talk on behalf of his father's HUF, all his income was
reflected in his Income Tax statement which had been filed before the court. He
was asked that he had been transferring money from his personal account running
into lacs to his father's HUF account No. 05064, UCO Bank, Parliament Street to
which he answered all his accounts relating to his income or his transactions
were filed before the Income Tax. He was asked that there were several entries
of his saving bank account and accounts of his HUF and accounts of his father's
HUF, his mother's account and his sister's account showing inter-se transfer
running into lacs from one account to another, why such transfer were being
made to which he answered all income was reflected in his Income Tax account.
Any operation of the account was irrelevant to his income. He was asked could
he recall why he transferred such huge amounts to HUF account of his father to
which he answered that the question was irrelevant to his income and therefore
he refused to give answer. He stated that if his statement of accounts
available on record would be shown to him, he would not like to give any answer
of questions which did not relate to his income.
76. RW1 admitted that
his father had created a Surajmal Shyama Devi Charitable Trust. The trust was
built for the upliftment of his mother's village and a clinic for the poor had
been constructed and handed over to the Govt. of Rajasthan. He volunteered that
this had nothing to do with his income and questions relating to Trust were
irrelevant to his income. He was again questioned what was the area of clinic,
whether it was big hospital, how many rooms were there, whether it was a 13 room
bed hospital which was donated by the Trust created by his parents to which he
answered he was not aware of any more details. RW1 stated that he was not
denying if the said donation was reported in newspapers. He did not know if
photocopy of the said newspaper shown at page 277 was the newspaper reporting
of the said donation. He did bit recall if he was a member of the said trust. He
did not participate in any functioning of the trust. That was done because his
parents did charity in their village. Volunteered it had nothing to do with his
income. He was not aware if that trust had also donated the idols of Ram,
Lakshman and Seeta at Hanuman Mandir, Connaught Place He could not recall all
bank account numbers when Sujata was living with him.
77. RW1 stated that he
had bank accounts at that time in Central Bank and UCO Bank. He did not recall
if he had account in PNB. He did not remember their numbers. They were
available on record. He stated that the said accounts were still functioning.
He had mentioned the said account numbers in his affidavit. He did not remember
the numbers. They were in UCO Bank, Central Bank and PNB. He had only three
savings account. As far as he remembered he had two accounts earlier when they were
living together. The said two accounts are mentioned in his affidavit i.e UCO Bank
and Central Bank Account. He was asked if there was another account No. 28142,
UCO Bank, Parliament Street and account 33834 Central Bank of India, Parliament
Street, another account No. 4185, Central Bank of India, Parliament Street,
another joint account No. 30263, Central bank of India, Parliament Street,
account No. 05064, UCO Bank, Parliament Street, Savings Bank account in PNB, Parliament
Street and Savings Bank in PNB, Khan Market and one account in the name of Engineering
Services in PNB, Parliament Street and he answered he did not recall if he had
the said accounts. They were a matter of record and all his accounts are
reported in his IT returns. He did not remember if he had the pass books of the
said accounts or their statements. He had not preserved them. They were about
15 years old. He was only having his pass books of his three accounts mentioned
in his affidavit which he was using. He must have closed them. It was a matter of
record. He did not recall when he closed the said bank accounts. He did not
recall if the said accounts were closed after filing of the present case or
prior to that. He did not mention the said facts in his affidavit and had only
shown his current income of the last three years. He admitted that Ex. PW4/B
(Collectively) is his statement of accounts in respect of Engineering Services
bearing account no. 4185, Account no. 1197283348 in his name Central Bank of
India, Parliament Street and also saving bank account No. 33834, CBI,
Parliament Street. Ex. PW3/A pertains to his account bearing No. 01200028142
UCO Bank, Parliament Street. He could not say if statement of account No. 5064
UCO Bank, Parliament Street was of the HUF of his father Sh. Surajmal &
Sons. He was not a signatory to the said account. He did not know who operated
the said HUF account. He could not vouch safe the correctness of statement of
account already Ex. PW3/E belonging to Surajmal & Sons, HUF. He was not the
Karta of the HUF of his father and he was not supposed to inform the said bank
about the dissolution of the HUF. He could not answer or admit or deny the
suggestion that the said account in the name of HUF was still operating till
date. He could not admit or deny if entries were there showing operation of the
accounts after the dissolution. He did not remember if there was any account
bearing No. 1065460433 belonging to him or any of his family members as he did
not remember any such account. He did not remember after marriage with Sujata
he opened any account with her jointly but he did not remember the bank
details. He did not remember who was operating the said account. He stated he
thought there was one locker in joint name of himself and his wife but he did
not remember the bank or locker number or any other details. He was not aware if
Sujata's jewellery was lying in that locker. He had not operated the locker and
as such he could not answer the questions. He did not remember when they took
the locker and its contents. As far as he knew nothing belonging to him lay in
that locker. He stated that once a locker is opened only then he could tell the
contents of the locker. Volunteered there was a matter pending in another court
regarding the said locker and the case was sub-judice. He was further
questioned what was that matter to which he answered that the question was
irrelevant to his income and therefore, he did not wish to answer. He was asked
whether that locker had been opened and he answered that the case pertaining to
locker was subjudice and he did not want to answer any question. He was asked whether
he had any objection if the jewellery lying in the locker was handed over to
Sujata but the same was disallowed as the proceedings could not be used to
derive answer for another proceedings. He was asked about Para 4 of his
affidavit to which he answered what was stated in Para was only the statement
of petitioner. He did not want to say the jewellery was in possession of
petitioner or not as the matter was subjudice. He did not know in which court
the matter was subjudice as 33 cases had been filed by the petitioner. He could
not tell the name of the 33 cases as it was not relevant to his income. He
could not tell the nature of those 33 cases as they were not relevant to his income.
He could not admit or deny if only cases of maintenance were pending. It was
not true. He was asked question that in respect of jewellery in the locker, he
had filed an affidavit stating that Sujata was not entitled to receive the
jewellery and he was not allowing her to take the said jewellery and he was
opposing an application u/s 12 Rule 6 Cr. P.C filed by Sujata to receive the
jewellery to which he answered the case was subjudice and he answered the
queries raised in that particular court. He mentioned the fact about jewellery
in Para 4 of his affidavit because it was relevant to the income of his wife.
He stated that he wanted to place on record her statement she had made before the
learned Registrar General. The said fact had been mentioned that the said
statement had been made by the petitioner before the learned Registrar General.
He did not want to answer the question as to how that jewellery was relevant to
his income and her income.
78. RW1 stated that he
had a de-mat account in HSBC Bank and he had investments in the said account.
It could be Rs. 40-50 lacs by current value. He did not remember the details of
hand about the shares he had and the bank account number. His shares were there
for the last 20-25 years. He was not getting any dividend out of the said
shares as all were trading on losses. He stated that the said account was
opened about 2 years back. Prior to the opening of the said account he was managing
his shares himself. He did not remember if there was any other De-mat account
prior to the account of HSBC and he had shown all accounts, assets and
investments in his IT returns. He stated that account of De-mat had been shown
in his IT returns. He had not filed the complete balance sheets showing his
D-mat accounts and shares he possessed and had only filed the Income Tax
returns. He was questioned had he filed the details of shares, bonds belonging
to him before the court and had mentioned about them in his affidavit and he
answered that he filed his income statement before the court. He had not filed
the whole balance sheet which contained details of shares. He was questioned
that he had shares worth Rs. 5 crores to which he answered his shares were of
matter of record and were not conjectures. He had purchased all the shares out
of his own income. He was asked how much money he spent on his petrol and he
could not tell specifically but must be Rs. 3-4 thousand monthly. He stated
that he spent about Rs. 1500/- on his food per month. His expenses on telephone
landline were around Rs. 4,500/- and mobile around Rs. 1500/-. He had no
expenditure on his clothing except the bare minimum which must be around Rs.
500/-. He did not pay House Tax of Defence Colony house as he lived with his
father and father paid the same. He paid maintenance charges of flat Nos. MB-10
& 11. It was approximate Rs. 20-25,000/- per quarter for both the flats.
Property N 1001 had been dissolved from the HUF. He believed his father must be
owning that flat then but he could not say. He did not remember about 1001. It
was earlier HUF property but he did not remember the current status. He stated
that as per the final dissolution property No. 1001 had not been distributed
and did find mention in the dissolution deed filed by him alongwith his
affidavit. He did not make any false statement about the said property that the
same had been dissolved. He did not know who was paying house tax of flat No.
1001 or maintenance charges. He stated that he had been paying house tax of
MB-10 & MB-11 to NDMC for the last 4 years. The tax must be approximately
7-8,000/- per year for both the flats but he did not remember exactly. He
stated that there were no other charges as the properties were not put in use.
He had paid the bills of maintenance upto the last quarter. An NGO in which he
was a Director was paying Rs. 15,000/- per month for maintenance to his father
for using H-22 Jangpura property for the last few years. Must be around 5-6
years and prior to that NGO was not using the said flat. He was not aware who
was using the said flat prior to that. He stated that prior to this, they were
operating from 1001, Antriksh Bhawan. He was questioned whether he was paying
anything to his father in respect of 1001, Antriksh Bhawan and he answered he
was not paying anything to his father. He stated that the NGO in which he was a
Director was also not paying to his father. They were not paying any rent to
anybody. The said property was given for use to the NGO. It could be around
1996-97 when the NGO started using the said flat as an office. This was after
he and the petitioner separated. There was no written agreement between his
father and NGO in respect of flat No. 1001. The flat had not been partitioned
when the HUF was dissolved as the same might not have been belonging to the HUF
on the date of dissolution of HUF. He was not aware to whom the said flat
belonged on the date of dissolution of HUF. He did not ask his father.
Although, he was the member of his father's HUF but he did not ask him as to
why there was no mention of the said flat in the dissolution deed. He denied
the suggestion that the flat No.1001 belonged to him or the same had been
rented out at Rs. 50,000/- per month for the last two years. He was not aware
who was having the records of that property, the rent agreement, the title
document or any other document related tot he said property. He was not aware
if his father was in possession of all such documents pertaining to the said
flat and income of the said flat. He denied the suggestion that the documents
pertaining to the rental income and title documents in respect of flat No. 1001,
Antriksh Bhawan, C-246, Defence Colony, 5/11, Shanti Niketan, H-2, Jangpura
Extension, HI or SI, Narang House, land at Chhattarpur were all with him or he
was not producing the same to conceal his status and income from the said
property.
79. RW1 stated that the
accounts of HSBC and Zurari Investments Ltd. which he had filed then before the
court are Ex. RW1/XX1 & Ex. RW1/XX2 which were opened when the D-mat
accounts were opened by the Govt. of India. He did not know if it was 10 years
back or 15 years back. He could not produce the statements of accounts of both
the accounts since the day he opened the same, other than what he had filed as
Ex. RW1/XX1 & EX. RW1/XX2, he could not produce any other document as it
was not in his possession. He asked the brokers to provide him the statement of
accounts since inception but they only provided him what he had filed. He did
not take any action against them for not providing him the earlier statements
since the time he opened the said accounts. He could not show any documentary
to show that he applied for the earlier statements. Volunteered he verbally asked
to supply him the copies of statements which they had applied. He had not
applied for the documents prior to that period. The brokers provided the
statement only for the current year and not for the previous years. He stated
that he never took the statements from the brokers for the previous years. He
denied the suggestion that he had shares worth Rs. 2 crores at the time of institution
of the present petition and it was for this reason that he had not applied for
the earlier statements.
80. Thus the respondent
was extensively cross-examined regarding his sources of income. The Ld. Counsel
for petitioner had argued that respondent had withheld evidence as to his
sources of income and given vague answers and he relied upon various judgments
in this regard being AIR, 1967 SC 109, AIR 1978 Del 199, 1975 RCR 289, AIR 1968
SC1413, AIR 1958 SC61. However, the petitioner herself has brought on record
material regarding sources of income of respondent through various witnesses.
Even respondent himself has admitted certain things. It was argued on behalf of
respondent that he did not have any source of income other than NGO but from
the material which has been brought on record, it is clear that he had more
sources of income than what has been stated. He had shares in his name though
he stated he was not getting any returns on the same. He had properties in his
name.
81. The Ld. Counsel for
the respondent has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court reducing the
maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, we are at the final stage and
the order of maintenance is to be passed on consideration of the entire
material on record.
82. The Ld. Counsel for
petitioner has relied upon various judgments on how maintenance is to be determined
such as 2004 (112) DLT 813; 2004 (110) DLT 546' 2004 (112) DLT 637; 2007 (145)
DLT 185 1997 (7) SCC7. There is merit in contention of Ld. Counsel for
petitioner that if the income of respondent was only as much as stated by him
he could not have been paying the sums as paid to the daughter. At the same
time it cannot be lost sight of that respondent is paying towards expenses and
fees of the daughter. Though other than the petitioner and the daughter there
is no other liability on the respondent.
83. It was argued by
Ld. Counsel for petitioner that during the pendency of the petition there had been
huge transfers from accounts of respondent to accounts of his family and he has
argued that theory of his pendens would apply. He has relied upon 2009 (SC) 6
JT 551, 2002 (95) DLT 545(DB), AIR 1954 SC 75 and AIR 1971 SC 1238 in his
regard. The respondent was also extensively cross-examined on this. However we
are essentially concerned with issue of maintenance.
84. The respondent had
sought to rely on income tax returns but it is strange that for 3 years the income
remained constant. Clearly the income of the respondent is much more than what
has been stated by him. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the income of
the respondent from all sources as assessed has not less than Rs. 1,00,000-/
per month.
85. The petitioner has
prayed for maintenance from the year 1994 when she was allegedly compelled to
leave the matrimonial home. However, maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C can be granted
only from the date of the petition or the date of the order.
86. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to pay maintenance
of Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner from the date of order till she is legally
entitled to receive the same. In addition the petitioner shall also be entitled
to interim maintenance awarded in her favour till date.
Petition stands
disposed of. File be consigned to record room.
No comments:
Post a Comment