TO:

Asha Devi D/o Shri :Vidhya Ram Kh. No. 149/2 (2C), Frends Appartment, New Basti Road, Village-Devali, New Delhi-110062

FROM: SHRI: VIDHYA RAM VILLAGE- UDANI POST OFFICE-SARAMAI DISTRICT-FIROZABAD PIN-283203

CERTIFICATE

It is to certify that Asha Devi D/o Shri: Vidhya Ram , Village- Udani, Post Office - Saramai, Tehsil- Firozabad, District-Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh) had permanent resided at following address since Dec 2007. Asha Devi D/o Shri :Vidhya Ram Kh. No. 149/2 (2C), Frends Appartment, New Basti Road, Village-Devali, New Delhi-110062 After the permanent resided at above address, the name of Asha Devi had been deleted from voting list from Tehsil Firozabad reason.

Dated :

Signature of Head of Village

Seal , Head of Village

GO/GS No.: 172424 Name: HORI LAL Your monthly details of 02/2012 are as under: Total Credits: 37106 Total Debits: 10059 Net Pay: 27047 Credits Basic Pay Grade Pay Dearness Pay DA TPTA Pers Pay UMA/WA NCASHL HRA SCRLA3 SDA Cr Amount 14180 4800 0 11472 800 0 75 9 1898 1500 2372 0 0 0 0 0 14678 0 Debits GPFsub/NPS GPFRefund/Govt Cont. ACRs FRMOs PLI CGEIS Staff Car Loans/Adv. Income Tax Edu.Cess CGHS Dr Amount 1139 4500 0 0 4360 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pay in Bank NPS Govt.Cont.

Home Back

Contact Us
Particulars of Transparency Officer under RTI Act Particulars of Appellate Authority under RTI Act Particulars of CPIO under RTI Act

Dr. V K Yadav, VSM Addl DGBR

Shri KKY Mahindrakar,VSM, Chief Engineer (Civil) Dy Dir Gen (Personnel)

Shri Rohtash Kumar, Joint Director (Admn)

HQ DGBR/ADG Sectt Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 110010

HQ DGBR/Pers Dte Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 110010

HQ DGBR/Pers Dte Seema Sadak Bhawan, Ring Road Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 110010

Tele - 011-25686857 Fax - 01125699618 e-mail- bro-adg@nic.in

Tele - 011-25686863 Fax - 011-25684632, 25696026 e-mail- bro-pers@nic.in

Tele - 011-25686962 Fax - 011-25684632, 25696026 e-mail- bro-pers@nic.in

1 IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE(WEST) TIS HAZARI : DELHI HMA No.81/2010 Sh. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Kumar R/o M-44, Gali No.4, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi.

....Petitioner Versus Smt. Priya Bharti Sharma W/o Sh. Amit Kumar D/o Sh. Ramesh Sharma R/o 529, Behind New Market, Krishna Gali, Yamunanagar, Haryana. ...Respondent Date of Institution of petition : 06.03.2010 Date of reserving the Judgment: 24.01.2012 Date of passing the Judgment : 28.01.2012 JUDGMENT: Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband to seek restitution of the conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA stating therein that marriage was solemnized between the parties on 15.03.2009, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Najafgarh, New Delhi and the parties had entered into marriage out of their own choice and desire. 2. It is further stated that although the marriage was duly consummated but Amit Kumar Vs. Priya Bharti Sharma2 there was no issue of the marriage. The parties continued to live together at Janakpuri, New Delhi up to 27.01.2010 and it is alleged that on the said date parents of the respondent/wife visited the matrimonial house of the parties and took the respondent alongwith them to their house at Yamunanagar, Haryana and also taking away the valuable articles etc. 3. Petitioner alleges that he lodged a complaint with PS Janakpuri in the interest of the respondent/wife herself as respondent/wife had been taken away by her parents against her wish. Petitioner is also alleged to have made several efforts to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home but that the respondent verbally refused to join the society of the petitioner/husband and also extended threats to him in case he persisted with his efforts. 4. It is the case of petitioner that the family members and relatives of the respondent that all were extending threats to him and to his family members to implicate them in a false criminal case relating to dowry demands etc. When all the efforts of the petitioner and his family members failed to bring back the respondent, petitioner has come up with the present petition to seek a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 5. After service of the notice upon the respondent both parties were directed to appear in person but till date in spite of innumerable opportunities, both parties failed to appear even once. It also comes to notice that although the directions had been issued for personal appearance, somehow the fact that they had not appeared even once went unnoticed. 6. It is further noted that matter was referred to Mediation but in the Mediation also respondent has not appeared. What is more significant is that WS was filed on behalf of respondent but respondent never appeared even once. It is also seen that after filing of the WS, no replication was filed and in fact none even appeared for the petitioner. None appeared for the petitioner even at the evidence stage to lead the Amit Kumar Vs. Priya Bharti Sharma3 evidence and this has remained the position till the last stage. Ultimately, opportunity for leading evidence was closed. Since the petitioner has failed to prove the allegations leveled by him by not

having stepped into the witness box in support of his own case, the case fails. Dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court (SUJATA KOHLI) today i.e. on 28.01.2012 ADJ ( WEST)/DELHI Amit Kumar Vs. Priya Bharti Sharma

1 HMA No. 08/2011 10.02.2012 Present : None. Application for Interim Maintenance under Section 24 HMA taken up for disposal. In this entire application comprising of as many as 34 paragraphs, unfortunately it is only one paragraph i.e. para no. 33 in all, wherein averments have been made relating to maintenance, rest of all are only allegations, relating to the main petition for divorce, which has been filed by the non applicant/husband. In this application, the applicant wife claims that non applicant/husband is a man of means and sources, having immovable properties, experience in the field of Web designing, and animation as per his resume, he is alleged to be doing his own business as a free lancer, as a designer and animator with reputed advertisement companies in India as well as abroad and having a rich experience with foreign companies. His immovable property is alleged to be worth about Rs. 1.2 crores. He is also alleged to be a owner of Santro Car as per the particulars given therein and maintaining expensive mobile set of Nokia in an expensive series. His earning is alleged to be more than Rs. 2 lakhs per month and besides it is claimed that he is also earning about Rs. 50, 000/ each month from different investments in shares, FDs, saving schemes of post offices etc. It is Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh2 further the case of the applicant wife that the non applicant/husband has no other liabilities apart from the applicant no. 1 and the minor child applicant no. 2, as stating the parents of the nonapplicant husband and his brother are well established and earning handsome amounts and going thereby, the applicant no. 1/wife has sought maintenance @ Rs. 80,000/ per month for both of the applicants taken altogether besides the sum of Rs. 70, 000/ as litigation expenses. Non applicant/husband in his reply has raised certain preliminary objections to the very maintainability of the application stating therein that applicant no. 1/wife is an employed person and besides well qualified having been a designer, who was earning Rs. 10,000/ with over time allowance before leaving for UK in the year, 2006 as she was employed as a Merchandiser in the export firm under the name and style of M/s. Bright Mak Traders located at Rz. 106,

Indra Park, East Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, whose proprietor is Sh. Davinder Singh. The nonapplicant/husband has also supported his reply by copy of appointment letter and certificate of assurance of re employment after the applicant no. 1 returns to India from UK. It is further the stand taken by the nonapplicant/husband that applicant no. 1/wife used to earn a handsome amount by providing her fashion design sketches to the above said employer on a work to work basis apart from receiving a regular salary as Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh3 merchandiser. As such according to the nonapplicant/husband, the applicant no. 1 wife was able to earn Rs. 30,000/ per month as she charges @ Rs. 3500/ per sheet of sketch design as she is an expert in making these sketches. It is further elaborated that the proprietor of the said firm is friend of the father of applicant no. 1 and being on family terms regularly visits their house as well and keeps presenting costly gifts to both applicants to the extent of gifting gold items as well i.e. gold earing etc. It is alleged that he has been always a part of the family in all the functions. The nonapplicant/husband also referred to certain conversation between the applicant no. 1 wife and said Mr. Davinder Singh, employer, while applicant no. 1 was in the UK and from so many conversations it reveals as if the said Mr. Davinder Singh conceded and proclaimed applicant no. 1 to be like his daughter. Applicant no. 1/wife, also sent number of sketches from UK to Mr. Davinder Singh at his email ID, which email ID is managed by son of Sh. Davinder Singh i.e. Mr. Nitin Chatwal. Reference has been made to one particular email vide which the said Mr. Davinder Sharma told the applicant no. 1 that exports were temporarily affected due to recession as in 2007 and that he was not been able to hire any expert since applicant no. 1 had left in the year, 2006 and therefore, he required some fresh ideas from applicant no. 1 for the spring/summer fashion collection to be Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh4 exported to Mexico and North America. Non applicant/husband has alleged that applicant no. 1 then prepared the fashion sketches from UK for Mr. Davinder Singh and emailed same to him on his above email ID. Further alleged that said Mr. Davinder Singh exported his fashion garments on the basis of the sketches at his brother's import firm namely M/s. Priya ConceptoIndu at the Mexican address as stated therein. The said Mr. Davinder Singh is also alleged to have exported the dresses to some other exporters in North as well as South America as well as in Europe and as such, applicant no. 1 is earning a minimum of Rs. 30,000/ per month, since 3 rd January, 2010 onwards. It has been further the case of the non applicant/husband, that applicant no. 1 was formerly residing in the house of her parents whereas she herself has also been alloted a plot of land measuring about 60 sqr. yds. in Rohini area of Delhi.

It is also the case of the non applicant/husband that he always wished that both the applicants live with him in the matrimonial home but applicant no. 1 in connivance with her parents and brother insisted upon living in a nuclear family and never resided in joint family of the non applicant/husband parents i.e. at the Matrimonial Home at Patparganj Society, Delhi. It is also his plea that parents of applicant no. 1 are interested in earnings of applicant no. 1, as such, they never wanted to loosen their grip on applicant no. 1 Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh5 and her earnings. However, non applicant/husband also states that he is ready to share with the applicant no. 1, the actual expenses of applicant no. 2 i.e. schooling fee subject to visiting rights to him and interact with minor daughter. As regards the allegations of the applicant regarding income of non applicant/husband, he has vehmently denied the same, also the non applicant/husband has denied being the owner of any immovable property worth Rs. 2 crores and even a Santro Car as alleged. He has denied business earnings being Rs. 2 lakhs per month. As regards the Nokia N series mobile set, non applicant/husband has submitted that it was provided free of cost by the Mobile service provider company about more than 3 years ago as per their standard practice to provide free of cost mobile handsets when a customer signs to the monthly prepaid talktime tariff scheme for the new tariffplan mobile services. In fact, the non applicant/husband has alleged that even applicant no. 1 too was given the similar mobile in the same category by the company under the said policy. As regards the alleged ownership of immovable properties, the non applicant/husband husband has further elaborated that he is not the owner nor in possession of any immovable property. Non applicant/husband claims to be residing with his parents ever since his arrival from UK, i.e. Flat No. 301, Navniti Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh6 Cooperative Society, Plot No. 51, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi and that the above said group housing flat was alloted to the father of the non applicant/husband in 1995 i.e. after 16 years of enrollment as a member in the said society and that the said flat is exclusively a self acquired property by his father who has worked very hard as a practicing lawyer since, 1975 till date and all that he could build for himself and his family was the above residence wherein non applicant/husband has no ownership right at all. However, that though non applicant/husband is free to use the said property but he is not entitled to claim any right whatsoever therein. Non applicant/husband has also added lengthy explanations in his reply that he is not living any luxurious life as has been alleged by applicant no. 1 and that he has not owned any car, however the non applicant/husband drives an old car model pertaining to the year 2001, the particulars of which have also been furnished, as being a Hyundai Santro bearing no. DL 7 CA 9980, which also is owned by his father and had been purchased as a second

hand car from a used/second hand car market of East Delhi and whose first owner also was a resident of I.P. Extension, Patparganj area. Non applicant/husband has also raised the points that applicant no. 1 has not furnished any particulars of the companies and the sources from where she alleges that he is earning Rs. 2 lakhs Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh7 or more in India or abroad and according to the non applicant/husband she is not able to furnish any particulars since these are only false allegations. Non applicant/husband has further set out to explain and clarify that he has only a single source of income which too is variable, temporary, short term and his monthly income depends upon the number of days and the hours of lecture per visit as per the time table furnished by the employer and that too is absolutely temporary in nature and may be discontinued at any point of time as non applicant/husband is a member of temporary visiting faculty staff of Global School of Animation and Gaming. Besides non applicant/husband has also come up with a case that he has several other legal binding liabilities towards SBI to repay his education loan by way of monthly installments and which on account of escalation in the interest rates have gone up. Non applicant/husband has also furnished the particulars and details of the said loan in part 'G' of his reply. However, non applicant/husband also claims that he has never refused and neglected to maintain his wife and the minor daughter. In fact, the non applicant/husband has also referred to the earlier meetings between the parties and family members which had also resulted almost in reuniting the parties to continue with the matrimonial life and according to non applicant/husband it is Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh8 applicant no. 1 herself who has voluntarily chosen to live separately alongwith minor daughter at her parents house against the consent and wishes of the non applicant/husband. It is also his stand that applicant no. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself on account of her special qualifications referred above. According to non applicant/husband, applicant no. 1 should not take benefit of her own wrongs and causing great mental and financial strain on the non applicant/husband. Non applicant/husband has further elaborated about his employments at different periods of time, quite clearly in as much as he states that after finishing his study in July, 2007, had got a job as a lecturer in Games Development(0.5 parttime), which was a part time in Bradford College in UK on 27.08.2007 and he used to transfer UK Pounds into the Bank account of respondent applicant in India, which account number has also been disclosed as being at ICICI Bank, Branch situated at BBlock, Janakpuri, New Delhi, where her father who used to withdraw the amounts out of the said transferred money in Indian currency being the special attorney of applicant no. 1 and

the total amount of money was transferred through ICICINet Express mode comes to be about 2200 sent by non applicant/husband during period from December, 2007 to June, 2009, which were being sent for the schooling and other miscellaneous expenses of the minor Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh9 daughter during her stay in house of the mother of the applicant no. 1 i.e. at Ganesh Nagar, Near Tilak Nagar. Copies of the transfer transactions details are filed on record. Apart from the above stated amount of money so transferred by the non applicant/husband into the account of applicant no. 1 in the ICICI Bank Ltd. (India) for the welfare and education of the minor daughter, the applicant no. 1 herself also sent about 500.00 GBP to her father, while she was in UK. The bank statements and the passbook of applicant's no. 1 of the ICICI Bank Ltd. (Janakpuri Branch, New Delhi, India) for the above said period is in the exclusive possession and custody of the applicant no. 1 and her parents. The said ICICI Bank account of the applicant no. 1 was got opened at the introduction of aforesaid family friend and employer of applicant no. 1 Shri Davinder Singh in the year August, 2005 onwards i.e. when the applicant no. 1 started working for the aforesaid export firm M/s. Bright Mak Traders and that hence from the above facts it is clearly evident that the non applicant/husband never neglected and refused to maintain the applicants no. 1 and no. 2 as alleged by the applicant no. 1 herein. The non applicant/husband further narrates that he facilitated the applicant no. 1 on the first available opportunity to join him in the UK as explained in the last paragraph number 33 above Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh10 and also while in the UK applicant no. 1 was given facilities and opportunities to make herself ready to be part of the U.K. community living and to include herself in the workforce of employment of the UK which task was difficult, as entering into UK job market without the formal UK education and also without the fluency in speaking and understanding of British English accent. It is further submitted that in order to achieve the above goal, the non applicant/husband provided all his experience and guidance to the applicant no. 1 so that she may get the reasonable opportunity to enter into the competitive U.K. job market and also became part of the British society. The non applicant/husband in order to make available the above said opportunity to the applicant no. 1, facilitated her to attend the QED UK (Moto: Turning Challenges to Opportunities) classes sponsored jointly by the UK Government and the E.U. Commission at Quest House, 243 Manningham Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BDB 7ER, UK. The said institution provided training to the applicant no. 1 from February 2007 to May 2007 in the fields of: a) British English business conversation and English Knowledge of workplace, b) Employment Oriented Skills, C) Basic IT Skills, d) Awareness about the rights of a women at workplace and in the society at large. Thereafter the non applicant/husband helped the

applicant no. 1 in getting her the National Insurance Number which is compulsory to join any kind of job in the United Kingdom. And when Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh11 the applicant no. 1 got the National Insurance Number (SH 29 67 41 B) which was alloted in month of April/May 2007 and thereafter only the applicant no. 1 was offered her first employment opportunity to work as a temporary worker/wage earner for about 10 to 12 hrs per week on parttime basis at the rate of 5.95 GBP per hour for the duration of one month in June, 2007 at ASDAGeorge Departmental Store in Reading, Berkshire, U.K. Thereafter the applicant no. 1 got other job opportunities intermittently as temporary worker employed on parttime bases in the following order shown below with details of period of employment, monthly wages and net wages after deduction of mandatory taxes on wages including the National Insurance (NI deductions). Details of applicant no. 1's total employments and income during the applicant no. 1's stay in the U.K. (from 27 th Oct., 2006 to 23 rd Nov., 2009) in various retail departmental stores/showrooms etc and also her expenditures are given as under in the tabular form: Table of Total Earning through Wages S. NO. Name of the Employer Type of Job Duratio n of the Job Monthly Wages Total Wages for period of Employ ment Tax Deducte d on Total Wages & NI Deduct Net Amount

received . Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh12 Table of Total Earning through Wages 1 ASD George, Reading Temporar y Part time worker Less than one month, June, 07 312.00 312.0 0 22.00 NI Deducti on=NIL 290.00 2 Bombay Stores, Bradford Temporar y Part time worker Less than one month 27 th August, 07 to 16 th Sept. 2007 682.13 682.1 3 42.93 NI Deducti

on=NIL 639.2 3 T. J. Hughes, Bradford Permane nt Part time worker. 8 months Sep 07 to April, 2008 429.76 3438. 10 108.71 NI Deducti on=31 3329.3 9 4 Morrison s Bradford Permane nt Full time worker 10 months Oct. 09 to July, 10 723.80 7238. 37 642.80 NI deduct = 151.00 6595.5 7 Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh13 Table of Total Earning through Wages Total Equati

on Four employer s during 3 years of stay in the UK Three part time jobs and only one full time job 10 months of part time jobs and 10 months of full time job out of three years of stay in the UK 10584. 16 total net amount received during three years of stay in the UK The non applicant/husband completed Bsc.(HOns.) in Animations and Special Effects in July 2007 from the University of Bradford, UK and thereafter he was employed as parttime lecturer in Bradford College on 0.5 grade and the non applicant/husband later in May, 2008 also started teaching few extra hours as a temporary visiting lecturer in Shipley College, West Yorkshire, UK on 0.25 grade. Thereafter on the expiration of non applicant/husband's Tier 1 (Post Study Worker Visa), the non applicant/husband alongwith applicant no. 1 came to Delhi on 24 th November, 2009 and since then non

applicant/husband has been trying to get a suitable job as per non applicant/husband's qualification and experience for which non Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh14 applicant/husband has applied online to many educational institutions and animation firms at Delhi, NCR region but to non applicant/husband's hard luck the non applicant/husband could not get any job however after eight months of unemployment since the date the non applicant/husband came back from UK, the non applicant/husband now got a temporary appointment on 6 th August, 2010 for a limited period of time on parttime basis as a Visiting Faculty for Gaming, taking 1 hour session per visit of lecturing for three days in a week i.e. on Monday, Wednesday and Friday as per the time table for limited period of months. The non applicant/husband claims to be under great financial stress and liability at the moment because he is legally bound to repay his educational loan of Rs. 15 lacs advanced to him by the State Bank of India, Daryaganj Branch, New Delhi110002 in the year 2003 which accumulated to Rs. 22 lacs on account of the addition of interest up to the year of successfully passing and attaining the honours degree of BSc. Animation and Special Effects from the University of Bradford, UK and since then the non applicant/husband being legally bound to repay the aforesaid loan and in fact started repaying the same in regular installments at the rate of about Rs. 30,000 per month and since then these monthly installments at the rate of about Rs. 30,000/ are being repaid in regular instalments and sometimes in bulk as per the requirement of Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh15 the bank and as per the necessitating circumstances in order to streamline the rate of floating interest of the said bank so that the repayment of the loan amount comes within the grip of the finances of the non applicant/husband. Ity is not out of context to mention here that in case even one monthly installment is not repaid and if missed as such then the rate of interest becomes compound and monthly installment rate thus would be escalated. At present the amount of balance of the said educational loan is to the tune of Rs. 6,15,893.77/ which liability is on the shoulders of the non applicant/husband. The petitioner husband/non applicant further pleads that the applicant no. 1 thus has sufficient independent source of income to maintain herself and also the minor child and the applicant no. 1 is also able to support the necessary expenses of the proceedings pending before this Hon'ble Court. In fact the applicant no. 1 has been misusing the statutory provisions of Section 24 HMA which is not meant for women having sufficient means and an independent source of income but the same has been enacted by parliament for really needy and destitute spouses. It is submitted that the non applicant/husband has given details about his loss of job after expiration of visa, details of the

struggles of finding a job in India after coming from UK on 24 th November, 2009 and also the pains and cruelty inflicted by the Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh16 applicant no. 1 on the non applicant/husband after coming to India from UK, which caused disturbance and turbulence not only in the matrimonial life but also in normal day to day living of the non applicant/husband which has caused a great mental agony and deprivation that took a toll on his health and his social and professional life and also has caused a great financial setback to the non applicant/husband who has not been able to get any suitable job. The applicant no. 1 after coming to know the factum of filing of the present divorce petition, rushed to file a false and frivolous complaints against the non applicant/husband and his family members in connivance with her parents and relatives before the Crime Against Women CellNanakpura New Delhi on 16 th June, 2010 as a counterblast to the said divorce petition and thereby misusing the provisions relating to dowry, harassments etc. The non applicant/husband and his parents have been put to great mental agony due to the false lodging of above said complaint in the CAW CellNanakpura, and the non applicant/husband and his father are regularly attending the various dates of hearing in the said CAW Cell on the basis of false and concocted allegations levelled after a period of about nine years of the marriage between the parties. Thus the non applicant/husband and his parents have been harassed and victimised by the applicant no. 1 in connivance with her parents and brother on false accusations and therefore the Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh17 day to day living of the non applicant/husband and his parents has been adversely affected due to the above retaliatory acts and behaviour of the applicant no. 1. Non applicant/husband has prayed for dismissal of the application with exemplary costs. In the Rejoinder filed by the applicant no. 1/wife, she has denied the allegations levelled by the non applicant/husband and has reiterated her own version as correct. She has denied having ever earn a handsome amount by providing fashion designing sketches to Mr. Davinder Singh alleged employer on work to work basis and also that she was able to earn about Rs. 13000/ per month. Applicant no. 1 wife admits that the proprietor of the said firm is a friend of her father and in his own family terms, and also that he used to present costly gifts to applicants including gold items. However she has strongly denied that she was ever paid even a single penny for her assistance given to Sh. Davinder Sharma neither any payment on work to work basis nor any salary. Applicant wife has also denied having been alloted a plot of land measuring 60 Sqr. Yrds. in Rohini. Argument Heard addressed at length spread over various dates as the matter has been hotly pursued/contested by both parties. Out

of the document filed by non applicant/husband were few documents relating to the website of the company M/s. Bright Mak Export Pvt. Ltd., which are extract from its website and show the name of its Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh18 director as Mr. Davinder Singh however as the applicant no. 1 had already not disputed her having worked for the said Mr. Davinder Singh for his company and a fact which has already been not disputed needs no further proof on that. Applicant no. 1 has taken the stand is that she was not being paid any remuneration or fee for her sketches either as salary or as work to work basis. In fact, as per the applicant no. 1 in her application for interim maintenance herself she has herself given the details of her qualifications and her having worked in the UK. Her capability to earn well is made out from the contents of the application itself i.e. para 19 thereof wherein the applicant no. 1 has stated that while in UK she has worked there for 3 years earned thousands of pounds(UK) and that although same were deposited into the account of non applicant/husband, since whether they were deposited in her own account or in the account of non applicant/husband, would be a matter of merits to be treated and decided only by way of detailed evidence, the only thing that comes clear is that applicant no. 1 is more than self sufficient to earn a good income for herself and to maintain her standard of living. It is further stated in the said part that applicant no. 1 has worked in various organization in UK and had earned handsome salary which were taken by non applicant/husband and deposited in his account. As already observed above, where the money was Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh19 deposited would only be a question of detailed evidence to be lead at the appropriate stage and for the purpose of interim compensation, the capacity of spouse to earn a living is what is relevant and the applicant no. 1 own stand that she earn a handsome salary, needs no further discussion on the point that applicant no. 1 is well capable of earning for herself. As regards where the money earned by non applicant/husband or by applicant while in UK were deposited and by whom they were withdrawn are absolutely not relevant to the question of interim maintenance whether the court is only concerned to find out about the capacity of spouse to earn for themselves and to maintain themselves as per their standard of living which they have been used to, their other liabilities besides the spouse claiming maintenance, if any, and not as to where the money that they earned in the past were deposited. It is quite unfortunate that applicant no. 1 has burdened this court with extremely lengthy and voluminous application, most of which is only repetition of the averments made in the Written Statement to the main petition for divorce and are matters only of merit to be prove by way of evidence at the appropriate stage. Hardly, one para is related to the point of maintenance and even the non applicant/husband has drifted away from the main aspect and gone into the question of where the saving were deposited earlier in

the past and by whom they were withdrawn. Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh20 It is observed that this like pleadings cause much delay in disposal of the present application, wherein, the court has literally to dig up the averments on the point of maintenance and could find a few only in one or two paras while rest of the entire application has been devoted to level allegations against the non applicant/husband on merits, which has already been stated earlier in Written Statement and were not at all required and have resulted in causing unnecessary delay to the application itself. Respondent/applicant has relied on extract from website to show the details of the properties owned by Petitioner. While first document relates to the property of Patparganj which the petitioner himself has not denied too, which according to him is owned by his father and not by him. However, the second page of the extract from website shows the name of Petitioner non applicant as being the direct owner. However the document shown to be extract from Wikimapia search shows that the petitioner non applicant also owns a luxury apartment in the Housing complex located in the outskirts of Delhi at Asola Extension, New Delhi. However the document of list of owners and the particulars of the apartment shows the father of the petitioner non applicant i.e. Sh. S. P. Singh to be the owner/allotee of House no. 34, in the said housing complex. Besides the respondent has also given the particulars of various bank accounts of the petitioner, besides furnishing the details of the various jobs held by Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh21 petitioner alongwith duration, salary and the total salary paid. The petitioner non applicant has shown to have earned about 27,600 UK Pounds, which would converted to Rupees comes to Rs. 23,46,000/. Besides, the various resumes of the petitioner alleged to have been submitted by him to the different companies are shown to be describing the petitioner as a self employed professional/contractor and with an hourly rate of 12 UK Pounds. From various other documents and record it transpires that petitioner non applicant is involved into several engagements like work as a visiting lecturer in various colleges, animation schools charging fees for lectures per hour, he is into developing and hosting websites for various brands and companies. Petitioner non applicant also shown to involve in making of cinematic movies and games development, running his own animation channel on Youtube having 824 subscribers till date and also giving advertisement on various websites with his work details. The detailed resumes of the petitioner non applicant no doubt render him a highly qualified & specialized professional into the field of animation with knowledge of his cinematic camera works. He is a graduate in Science and also specialized in Computer Animation and Special Effects from University of Bradford, UK. The voluminous extract from the website brought on record, prima facie, established the petitioner to be quite capable of earning handsome Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh22

income for himself from business of making animation films, and from all the above mentioned fields. At the same time the various documents filed by the petitioner non applicant also highlight that respondent wife/applicant is also equally if not more qualified than the petitioner non applicant. She is a qualified fashion designer cum merchandiser. She is evidently capable of having sufficient income for her support and also litigation expenses. The experience certificate and appointment letter of respondent applicant shows her income to have been Rs. 10,000/ per month i.e. way back in the year 2005. It is also important that from the emails extracts placed on record, it is prima facie made out that her then employer Mr. Davinder Singh, the family friend had also assured the applicant/respondentwife to put her back on the job after she returns from UK. The voluminous document filed on behalf of petitioner non applicant also do show clearly that applicant wife is also highly qualified and specialized in the field of Fashion Designing. The petitioner non applicant has relied upon various fashion designing sketches and also the certificate issued by her then employer Mr. Davinder Singh, the family friend and who is proprietor of M/s. Bright Mak Traders. Moreover, the fact of respondent application having been well placed and having earned a good income of her own while in UK has not even been disputed and on the contrary it is she herself who Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh23 has claimed that she had earned substantial amount of money although the same was deposited in the account of the petitioner non applicant. While deciding the application for interim maintenance, it is not relevant as to where the previous income of the respondent/applicant was deposited as that would only be matter of evidence. The court is only concerned with the present sources of income of the parties, their liabilities apart from the spouse claiming maintenance in the present case, it is crystal clear that both parties are from very well settled families, highly well placed, belonging to the higher status of society, with the respondent applicant being well capable not only to maintain herself but to enjoy a luxurious life style. Ld. counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs. State cited as 2010(5)CRJ 446(DEL). Although the petition filed was against the order passed under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005, it was held by his Lordship that the Act does not create any additional right in favour of Wife regarding maintenance and that it only enable the Magistrate to pass the maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws. It was then held that no law provides that a husband has to maintain his wife living separately from him, in spite of the fact whether he earns or not, court cannot tell the husband he should beg, borrow or steal, Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh24 but give maintenance to the wife. More so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of

earning and both of them claim to have been gainfully employed before marriage. It was further held that an unemployed husband who is holding an MBA degree cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife who is also holding an MBA degree. Since, both are on equal footing, one cannot be asked to maintain the other, unless one is employed and other is not. Order of maintenance in that particular case was as such set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. In the present case, the email containing attachment of professional fashion sketches created by respondent applicant wife emailed from U.K. to M/s. Bright Mak Traders on page 39 and Fashion design sketches created by respondentwife/applicant duly signed by her from page 40 onwards to 50, altogether point out towards the capability of the respondent applicant to earn a good income for herself to maintain the good standard in life and in fact the entire contents of the detailed affidavit filed by the respondent wife/applicant in terms of order of Hon'ble High Court passed in Puneet Kaur Vs. Inderjeet Sing Sawhney in CM NO. 79/2011 show that the respondent applicant is rather from a better placed family than that of the petitioner and in fact belongs to the class i.e. called 'elite'. On the other hand the petitioner, non applicant has placed Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh25 on record a car receipt for purchase of a used 9 year old Santro Car in the name of his father and also the documents showing that petitioner/non applicant had obtained education loan from SBI for his higher studies in UK and he is legally bound to repay the said loan, putting the petitioner in a weaker situation than the respondent in the present case. It was the contention of Ld. counsel for petitioner non applicant during arguments that if the respondent applicant chose not to work inspite of the qualifications degrees and particulars available at her, she cannot become a burden on the husband who himself is looking for different assignments all the time. Besides presently the husband is not able to look for jobs/assignments properly and even in case he lands up with some assignments, he is not able to attend the same properly because of as many as 6 criminal cases already having being filed against him by the respondent applicant. Besides it was also pointed out that respondent applicant has not come to court with clean hands as she has tried to conceal her sources of income and in fact when she was directed to file relevant pages of pass book she avoided the same and instead filed only one page i.e. page no. 4. On the other hand, the contentions of Ld. counsel for respondent applicant was only that all in the family of petitioner non applicant are lawyers and secondly in general husbands do not share Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh26 whole information with their wives in India and thirdly that petitioner non applicant wants to enter into a second marriage. The third contention is relating to the merits of the case and is not relating to the question of maintenance. In so far as the

first contention that all in the family of petitioner are lawyers, Petitioner has not concealed that his father is a lawyer but that cannot become a disqualification for the petitioner in so far as the question of interim maintenance is concerned. As regards the second contention that husbands do not share whole information with their wives in India, this does not seem to be the case in the present case where the respondent applicant and the petitioner non applicant are from very enlightened families, well aware of their rights and petitioner non applicant has come out quite honestly about his sources of income and has shared them with the respondent applicant. In Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007) DLT 16, this court laid down the following principles for fixing the maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act: 4.Right to maintenance is an incident of the status from estate of matrimony. Interim maintenance has an element of alimony, which expression, in its strict sense means allowance due to wife from husband on separation. It has its basis in social conditions in United Kingdoms under which a married woman was economically Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh27 dependent and almost in a position of tutelage to the husband and was intended to secure justice to her. 5. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act goes a step further in as much as it permits maintenance to be claimed by the husband even against the wife. 6.While considering a claim for interim maintenance, the court has to keep in mind the status of the parties, reasonable wants of the applicant, the income and property the the applicant. Conversely, requirements of the non applicant, the income and property of the non applicant and additionally the other family members to be maintained by the non applicant have to be taken into all. Whilst it is important to ensure that the maintenance awarded to the applicant is sufficient to enable the applicant to live in somewhat the same degree of comfort as in the matrimonial home, but it should not be so exorbitant that the non applicant is unable to pay. 7.Maintenance awarded cannot be punitive. It should aid the applicant

to live in a similar life style not expose the non applicant to unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On the other hand, maintenance should not be so low so as to make the order meaningless. 8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh28 truthfully reveal their income. For self employed person or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an applicant under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The same are: 1. Status of the parties. 2.Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The independent income and property of the claimant. 4.The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain. 5.The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Nonapplicant's liabilities, if any. 7.Provisions for food, clothing, shelther, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8.Payment capacity of the non applicant. 9. Some guess work is not ruled out Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh29 while estimating the income of the non applicant when all the sources or correct are not disclosed. 10.The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11.The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.PC is adjustable

against the amount awarded under Section 24 of Act. In Jayant Bhargava V. Priya Bhargava, 181 (2011) DLT 602, this court laid down the factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the income of the spouse. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced hereunder: 12. It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one spouse lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a life of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency of divorce proceedings the parties should be able to maintain themselves and should be sufficiently entitled to the represented in judicial proceedings. It in case the party is unable to do so on account of insufficient Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh30 income, the other spouse shall be liable to pay the same. (See Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., reported at V (1998) SLT 551, III (1997) CLT 398 (SC), II (1997) DMC 338 (SC) and (1997) 7 SCC 7). 13. A Single judge of this Court in the case of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hedge, reported at 140 (2007) DLT 16 has culled out 11 factors, which can be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Further it has been noticed by the Courts that the tendency of the spouses in proceedings for maintenance is to not truthfully disclose their true income. However, in such cases some guess work on the part of Court is permissible. 15. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasbir Kaur (Smt) (supra), has also recognized the fact that spouses n the proceedings for

maintenance do not truthfully disclose their true income and therefor some guess work on the part of the Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court has also observed that considering the diverse claim made by the parties one inflating the income and the Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh31 other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision. 16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list of factors, which are to be considered in guessing the income of the spouses, but the order based on guess work cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. While guessing the income are either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court can take into consideration amongst others the following factors: (i) Life style of the spouse; (ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage and the manner in which marriage was performed; (iii) Destination of honeymoon; (iv) Ownership of motor vehicles; (v) Household facilities; (vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help; (vii) Credit Cards; (viii) Bank Account details; (ix) Club membership; (x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid; (xi) Property or properties purchased; (xii) Rental income; (xiii) Amount of rent paid; Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh32 (xiv) Amount spent on travel / holiday; (xv) Locality of residence; (xvi) Number of mobile phones; (xvii) Qualification of spouse; (xviii) School(s) where the child or

children are studying when parties were residing together; (xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses incurred; (xx) Amount spent on extra curricular activities of children when parties were residing together; (xxi) Capacity to repay loan. Case law considering the legal position w.r.t. the principles and guidelines laid down in the various above referred decisions by our own Hon'ble High Court and also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstances as brought out, taking the prima facie view, the respondent applicant has not made out any case for her entitlement to interim maintenance from the petitioner non applicant. As regards minor child, the burden, must be shared equally between both the parents i.e. parties to the petition. Going by the standard of the parties, their families and their status in the society, taking into the view of the surrounding factors, the sum of Rs. 20,000/ per month would be sufficient for the welfare of the child including education, the said amount of Rs. 20,000/ per month would equally be shared by both parties to the Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh33 extent of 50%. As such non applicant petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance to the minor daughter i.e. Sanaya @ Rs. 10,000/ per month with the remaining Rs. 10,000/ to be borne by the respondent applicant herself w.e.f. date of filing of the application i.e. 09.08.2010. The application is disposed off accordingly. To come up for payment of arrears to applicant no. 2 through her guardian applicant no. 1 and also for admission/denial of documents, if any, and issues on 25.04.2012. (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/10.02.12 p. Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh34 Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh 1 IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE(WEST) TIS HAZARI : DELHI HMA No.509/2011 Sh. Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Ujagar Singh R/o I-21, Street No.35, Mahendra Park, Azadpur, Delhi. ....Petitioner Versus

Smt. Harjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Harvinder Singh D/o Sh. Sahib Nagpal, Presently residing at: WZ-519, Street No.27, Shiv Nagar, New Delhi. ...Respondent Date of Institution of petition : 13.09.2011 Date of reserving the Judgment: 02.02.2012 Date of passing the Judgment : 03.02.2012 JUDGMENT ON COMPROMISE: 1. Petitioner Sh. Harvinder Singh sought restitution of conjugal rights from Smt. Harjeet Kaur alleging therein that the parties were married according to Sikh/Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi on 06.03.2005 and that they lived together as husband and wife at Delhi. There is no child from the wedlock. 2. It is further alleged that prior to this marriage petitioner had already been married ones and two children from the first marriage namely Isheeta Kaur aged about Harvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur2 17 years (daughter) and Ramneek Singh (son) were born out. Similarly, the respondent was also already married ones and was having a daughter from her first marriage aged about 14 years namely Smriti @ Riti. The marriage between the parties was simple and both the parties live together with the three children peacefully and happily. However, after sometime of the marriage, differences developed on various grounds as alleged and ultimately led to the parting of the ways by the respondent from the petitioner, which compelled the petitioner to fled the present petition. 3. Written statement was filed by the respondent denying all the allegations. At that stage matter was also adjourned to explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. 4. The matter was amicably settled between the parties as per the statements also recorded separately. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement containing the detailed terms and conditions as under:a. It has been mutually agreed between the parties, that the first party shall pay a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) to the second party as financial security which includes FDR of Rs.50,000/bearing No.31141242031 and FDR no.31141235806 of Rs.50,000/- which were made on 21.04.2010 in the joint name of the parties for a period of five years. These FDRs were made out of the money which was received by the second party in the name of her daughter Smriti @ Riti at the time of divorce from her previous husband. The said two FDRs of Rs.50,000/each shall be encashed immediately after the signing of this agreement and the entire amount alongwith the interest shall be re-invested in the shape of the FDR in the name of the minor daughter Smriti@Riti under the guardianship of the second party till she attain the age of majority. b. It has also been agreed between the parties that out of the remaining amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs only), the first party shall give Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.78596 dated 04.01.2012 drown on State Bank of India Majilis Park, Delhi-110033, to the second party in her name at the time of signing of this agreement. The first party shall pay Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque to the second party after 3 months from the date of signing of this agreement and the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- shall be

Harvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur3 paid by the first party to the second party in her name on or before 30.09.2012. c. Both the parties to this agreement have agreed to live together as husband and wife alongwith their children at I-21, Street No.35, 1 st Floor, Mahendra Park, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 from the date of signing of this Agreement/MOU. The second party shall withdraw her complaint from the office of the Crime Against Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on the date of signing of this agreement. Both the parties will take care of each other and all the three children and give all love, affection and comforts to them. d. That the second party has no grievances against the family members of the first party. She has no claim regarding istridhan, cash, gifts, etc. against the first party and his family members. On 2 nd January, 2012, the second party has taken a separate locker in her name bearing No.9 with Syndicate Bank, Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-33 for keeping her jewelry, documents etc. The first party undertakes to return whatever jewelry of the second party is left with the first party against receipt. In any case the second party shall not give any of her jewelry etc. to the first party in future. e. That in case the second party again leave company of the first party then the second party and her daughter Smriti @ Riti shall not be entitled for any maintenance from the first party and his family members before the Crime Against Women Cell or under Section 12 of the DV Act as well as for grant of maintenance for herself and the minor daughter. f. That the parties will jointly move application under order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC alongwith the copy of this agreement in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same shall be withdrawn by the first party. The second party shall also withdraw her complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, after encashment of the aforesaid cheque bearing No.782596 dated 04.01.2012 drawn on State Bank of India Majlis Park, Delhi-110033. The second party will not press her application under Section 24 & 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. g. It has also been agreed between the parties that the second party shall pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the first party out of her salary towards the contribution of the household expenses. The parties shall bear all the educational and marriage expenses of all the three children. h. The parties shall make the best of their efforts to live in peace and Harvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur4 adjust with each other and also maintain cordial relation. The parties shall not make issues out of trivial matters. The parties shall respect, love and trust with each other and would hold the said trust dearest to them. i. The parties shall value each other's opinion the most and will not be influenced or prejudiced by any third party opinion. j. The parties shall make the best of their efforts to live happily with

each other alongwith their children as responsible parents. The parties undertake not to make any issue/fuss/furore over trivial domestic matters, and would resolve them peacefully. k. The parties undertake to discharge their matrimonial obligations in a normal, balanced, healthy and constructive manner. l. Any other litigation, complaint or case etc. filed against each other by either of the parties before the court of law, authority etc. and not specified hereinabove shall also be deemed and treated as withdrawn and null and void. m. Both the parties undertakes that they shall have no grievances or claim of any nature whatsoever against each other and shall live peacefully alongwith their children for rest of their life. n. The parties further agree that they will be transparent in their conduct and day to day activities. They undertake not to be influenced by the opinion of any other person and will not unnecessarily doubt the integrity, honesty, of the other party . Accordingly, the petition is decreed in terms of the compromise. Decree sheet be drawn. File be consigned to record room. Announced in open court today i.e. 03.02.2012 (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Harvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur