Get our post in your mailbox


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

This blog is Created by CA Anil Kumar Jain.