In this post we will discuss about a petition filed by one Shiny Verma Bakshi against her husband Dr. Gurneet Singh Bakshi (respondent) and three other respondents seeking an enhancement i.e. an increase in the maintenance he owed her.
Enhancement of Maintenance
The following article addresses a petition filed by one Shiny Verma Bakshi (petitioner) against her husband Dr. Gurneet Singh Bakshi (respondent) and three other respondents seeking an enhancement i.e. an increase in the maintenance he owed her. The following analysis of Shiny Verma Bakshi vs Dr. Gurneet Singh Bakshi&Ors. may assist one in deciphering the requirements of the court to grant an enhancement in maintenance.
The facts of the case are as follows:
The case, argued in the High Court of Delhi, was reserved on 12.01.2021 and pronounced on 27.01.2021. The sitting judge for the same was the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait.
The petition was brought forward by the petitioner, Shiny Verma Bakshi, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside an order dated 24.09.2020 passed by learned MM (South-West)-4, in M.C. bearing No.140/2020 and seeking enhancement of maintenance granted to the petitioner.
The learned senior council for the petitioner argues that the petitioner/wife married respondent No.1/husband on 26.12.2018at a five-star venue, organised by the petitioner’s family following demands by the respondents because the respondents family did not object to the fact that the petitioner was a divorced woman. The counsel for the petitioner established the argument that the respondents were more than equipped to maintain the petitioner whose mother is a housewife, brother is married and living separately in Australia and father was 100% paralysed since the past 20 years and had succumbed to COVID-19 during the pendency of the present lis while she, the petitioner, herself is a housewife with no independent income. The facts the senior counsel used to support his arguments were:
- Respondent No.1 is employed at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital with an admitted income of Rs. 92,000/- and has an additional income through consultancy and interest from multiple FDRs which has not been disclosed by him
- Respondent No.3 (father-in-law) is a retired Engineer with sufficient sources of income.
- Respondent No.4 (mother-in-law) is a Senior Professor in Delhi University with a handsome salary.
- The family of respondent No.1 live a life of luxury and he is required to maintain neither his parents nor another relative.
The next argument that the Senior Counsel for the petitioner made was that she, the petitioner had been ill-treated by the respondents after marriage on the grounds that the dowry she brought was inadequate and much lesser than the dowry respondent No.1 could have received given that he is a doctor. Respondent No.1 proceeded to physically assault the petitioner and send abusive messages to the mother of the petitioner demanding Rs. 70 lacs or an Audi Q7 car out of the compensation received by the father of petitioner in his Motor Accident Claim. Following the above mentioned incidents, the petitioner filed her complaint before National Commission for Women (NCW) on 03.06.2020 against the physical and mental abuse by respondents. However, the aforementioned abuse continued thereby compelling her to file a complaint under Section 12 r/w Sections 17/18/19/20/22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents herein. On 24.09.2020, the learned Mahila Court was pleased to pass the impugned order wherein an interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month was awarded in favour of petitioner herein. Learned Court also restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from her matrimonial home.
ALSO READ-MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
Despite the orders of the court prohibiting the dispossession of the petitioner the respondents evicted the petitioner from her matrimonial home under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 supported by an illegal order for eviction passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner has been living with her mother at her parental house since 28.09.2020.
To further support his arguments the learned Senior Counsel used the following case laws:
- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha &Anr.: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 903 [para 56(III)(i)] has laid down factors to be considered by the Court while assessing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife.
- Babita Bisht vs. Dharmender Singh Bisht: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8775 in para 12 laid down that the formula of apportionment warrants that in case of no dependants, husband shall retain two parts of his income whereas one part shall be given to the wife.
- It is the respondent’s case that respondent Nos.3 & 4 have disowned their son i.e. respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 also never claimed that he has any dependants and thus, petitioner is entitled to at least 1/3rd of his admitted salary of Rs.92,000/- per month.
- Annurita Vohra vs. Sandeep Vohra: 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192, this Court observed that since Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution do not permit discrimination between men and women, therefore, the petitioner, the wife, is also entitled to live according to the status of her husband and apportionment formula must be applied to calculate her maintenance.
- Meenu Chopra vs. Deepak Chopra: 2001 SCC OnLine Del 563, this Court was of the view that after the marriage, the wife adopts her matrimonial home and accustomed to the lifestyle of her husband. Therefore, Courts must be sensitive towards the deserted wife and follow the principles of equity and justice while assessing her maintenance.
- Merely because wife is capable of earning does not mean that her maintenance should be reduced. In Shailja&Anr. vs. Khobbanna: (2018) 12 SCC 199, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capability of earning and actually earning are distinct.
- Financial position of family of wife is immaterial while assessing quantum of maintenance as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain: (2017) 15 SCC 801.
ALSO READ-CALCULATING MAINTENANCE DURING DIVORCE
Furthermore, it is further submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1 had deserted the petitioner on 26.05.2020, without any maintenance and to the mercy of her parents-in-law.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that yes, in fact thegross salary of respondent No.1 is Rs. 92,000/-. The counsel proceeded to show a breakdown of the monthly expenses of Respondent No.1 which added up to Rs. 89,483/-and respondent No.1 has no FDR, property, nor had inherited any property by any law of succession which shows he is not financially equipped to pay even the monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to the petitioner.
The other material that was considered by the court included:
The highly qualified education of the petitioner includes a BBA from ITM College Gurgaon, MBA from IILM College Lodhi Road, New Delhi and Core Franchisee Certificate from Sydney, Australia.
Working proof of petitioner presented by respondents including work historyat Thomas Pink in India (not disputed), her brother’s Franchise Muffin Break regularly in Perth, Australia till 2018 (Pics of working and Chat already on record), presently working as a Free Lancer Barista and also used towork as Barista when petitioner and respondent No.1 were at Mohali.
The petitioner has assets, however, disputed, which are:
(i) FD of Rs.15 Lacs as mentioned in FIR dt.
21/12/2015 of previous marriage
(ii) Receiving of Rs. 9.5 Lacs by demand draft mentioned in Order dated 01/11/2018 in Crl.
MC No. 5580/2018, by Justice A. K. Pathak, Delhi High Court (Order on Record and Second Marriage took Place on 26/12/2018). No account statement was ever filed where this amount was deposited.
(iii) Concealed South Indian Bank, (document already on record filed by respondent No.1). Later stated just before filing maintenance petition that it was closed, without assigning any reason and avoided to file any document of the same despite demand.
Moreover, the petitioner never disclosed they received thirty two lacs ninety three thousand two hundred twenty four+ 7.5% p.a. interest as compensation from the accident of the father of the petitioner, awarded by this Court, along with a lumpsum amount from his employer along with regular benefits, i.e. DA.
In addition, inherited properties of petitioner are stated by respondents including two properties and one car.
Furthermore, petitioner has claimed that her parents spent Rs.1 crore on her previous marriage and also spent good amount on her second marriage. It is not explained how come her parents spent these sums when none of them are working as said by the petitioner to the Court (Previous FIR on record).
It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner and her family are involved in about more than 14-15 cases under various heads as per the record of the internet. Whereas, respondent No.1 and his family have initiated only one case in their life time and that too for their security. After marriage, respondent No.1 discovered that the Income Tax Department had also raided the house of the petitioner for malicious activities in the year 2016-17.
ALSO READ-IS MOTHER IN LAW ENTITLED TO PAY MAINTENANCE OR NOT?
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents as the petitioner failed to establish that respondent No.1 is having more income then admitted or assets in his name and rather they find the petitioner to be wealthier than respondent No.1. The previous maintenance amount remained, and this petition was dismissed.
This post is written by Nankee Arora
For case specific advice or Free Legal Advice on Maintenance Matters, please speak to top /expert Best Maintenance lawyers advocates of your city. (Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur
For more info, dial 99888-17966
