Jitender Chauhan v. Renu Chauhan

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 18, 2018 'gsr'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18th July, 2018 + CM(M) 800/2018 JITENDER CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Megha, Adv. Versus RENU CHAUHAN ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.28107/2018 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CM(M) 800/2018 & CM No.28106/2018 (for stay) 3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order [dated 19th April, 2018 in HMA No.1571/2017 of the Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi] directing the petitioner / husband to, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent / wife. 4. The counsel for the petitioner / husband has been heard. 5. The impugned order is detailed and well reasoned, dealing with each and every contention of the petitioner / husband. 6. The counsel for the petitioner / husband today, has made three contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the Judge, Family Court, Dwarka has not considered the Income Tax Return of the respondent / wife for the year 2015-16 produced by the petitioner / husband. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent / wife had approached the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bhiwani under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying for grant of an interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month by the petitioner / husband and which application was dismissed; it is argued that the respondent / wife in the said proceeding did not render the explanation qua the Income Tax Return for the year 2015-16 which was rendered before the Judge, Family Court and has been accepted in the impugned order. The third and last contention is, that the respondent / wife is well qualified and capable of earning and the Judge, Family Court, Dwarka has not considered the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta (2016) 234 DLT 639 holding that when the wife is well qualified, she cannot be permitted to sit idle and to put burden on her husband by demanding pendente lite alimony. 7. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. 8. The impugned order records (i) that the respondent / wife holds a qualification of M.Sc. B.Ed.; (ii) that it was the case of the petitioner / husband that the respondent / wife had filed her income tax return for the year 2015-16 wherein she had shown her gross income as Rs.4,01,240/- and after deduction, her total income as Rs.3,02,840 meaning that she was earning Rs.25,236/- per month; (iii) that it was however the explanation of the respondent / wife that after her marriage with the petitioner / husband, she had gone for study in Australia and her expenses were borne by the petitioner / husband and for visiting Australia the Income Tax Return was got prepared and filed for seeking visa; and, (iv) that the petitioner / husband was even otherwise unable to plead or aver as to where the respondent / wife was working in the year 2015-16 or even where is she working at present. 9. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / husband today also to show the plea taken anywhere, of the place from where the respondent / wife was earning during the year 2015-16 or to at least name the place where the respondent / wife is today employed or earning as a teacher for which she holds the qualification. 10. No answer is forthcoming. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, no error requiring interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is found in the impugned order accepting the explanation aforesaid of the respondent / wife qua the Income Tax Return. 12. It cannot be lost sight of that the Income Tax Return in question is of the time when the respondent / wife was residing with the petitioner / husband and it was not disputed by the petitioner / husband that the respondent / wife had indeed gone to Aus