Maintenance Denied to Wife as She Taken Money from Husband

Court: Family Court of Gurugram

XXXXXXXX vs XXXXXXXXXXX

Law Point: Maintenance Denied to Wife as She Had Taken Money from Husband During Marriage

JUDGEMENT

1. This order of mine shall dispose of an application filed by applicant-respondent-wife for grant of interim maintenance u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. It has been vehemently contended by the learned amicus curiae for the applicant-respondent that the respondent has no independent source of income and is completely dependent upon the petitioner for her maintenance. Petitioner is employed in Standard Chartered Bank and is earning handsomely and at the same time he is not contributing towards the maintenance of the respondent. Respondent is living with her mother in Jaipur as her father has expired on 26.12.2015 and on account of her being treated with cruelty by the petitioner and his family members. She has to incur expenses of engaging a lawyer of Jaipur because of her comfortable position to consult the Advocate on daily basis and for safety purposes she has to travel in her own vehicle as pandemic Covid-19 has struck the Nation for which reason her litigation expenses also needs to be awarded. She is dependent for her day to day expenses and her medical treatment on her mother and in such circumstances, petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh as interim maintenance as well as cost of litigation to the respondent. It has been further contended that at this stage the merits of the case can not be dealt into and in this regard reliance has been drawn upon XXXXXXXX vs XXXXXXXXXXX

3. Per contra, learned amicus curiae for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the present petition has been filed concealing material facts and the documents annexed along with the reply to the application under Section 24 of HMA reflects the respondent to be the owner of Aagman Imports and is thus earning handsomely and is also filing GST returns. Respondent has also done fitness modelling and despite obtaining lucrative job offer in Dubai, she did not join as she was already making huge profits from her business venture run with her family. Also, respondent has misappropriated Rs. 23 lakhs which amount stands admitted by her. This amount was given for the purchase of property but the same stands misappropriated by the respondent who is also in an adulterous relationship with her paramour which is the main ground of filing of the present petition and in this regard even recording has been placed on the case file. Thus, it has been submitted that the litigation expenses already being given to the respondent by virtue of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order on every date when the respondent is appearing before the Court the present application merits dismissal.

4. I have heard learned amicus curiae of both the sides and perused the record.

5. After hearing the submissions of learned amicus curiae for both the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case by virtue of order dated XXXXX of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. XXXXXXX titled as XXXXXXXX vs XXXXXX, it has been ordered that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner i.e. the present respondent (XXXXX) towards the travelling and other expenses by the petitioner in the present case whenever she appears before the Family Court, Gurugram, Haryana on such date. Thus, by virtue of order dated XXXXX Hon’ble Supreme Court has covered travelling and other expenses and the present petition claiming such an amount under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is thus not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law for which reason the same merits dismissal. Also. the documents annexed along with the reply to the petition shows the respondent to be the owner of ‘Aagman Imports’ and thus, it can not be taken on the face of it that the respondent is completely dependent upon the petitioner for her sustenance. There is also dispute with regard to Rs. 23 lakhs which has been transferred by the petitioner to the respondent and in such circumstances this Court does not deem it fit to award any interim maintenance to the respondent and the application under Section 24 of HMA for grant of interim maintenance is hereby dismissed.

The respondent appeared in person and moved a separate application to engage counsel. In view of provisions of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, the said application is allowed. Advocate XXXXXXX, filed POA on behalf of the respondent. Request has been made for filing reply. Heard. Allowed. In this present case, an application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to preserve the call details of mobile phone No.XXXXXXXXXX. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred a case law titled as XXXXXXXXX. The present application is allowed. The telecommunication Airtel is directed to preserve and retain the call data in respect of mobile phone No.XXXXXXXXX for the period from XXXX to XXXXX. The data shall be retained till further orders from this court. To come up on XXXXX for filing reply

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.