Pankaj Chawla v. Divya Kapoor

Order under signatoes. of CpUit Master. o> UEEV SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 08,2019 st •a J' Ji /sv' - " 'i. •' i- -j -I -!■ CRL.REV.P. 146/2017 &CRL.REV.P. 172/2017 Page 10 of10

y * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: OP'November, 2018 Judgment delivered on: OS''^ January, 2019 + CRL.REV.P. 146/2017 PANKAJ CHAWLA Petitioner versus DIVYA KAPOOR Respondent + CRL.REV.P. 172/2017 DIVYA KAPOOR , ^ Petitipner ■yensMi ^ ^ , t:I;^ " ;,, ^ ■ PANKAJ CKLAWLA . $>5^ Respondent • ! • Advocates who appeared in tnis casfei; S v For the Petitioner: Mr.R.D.Sin^l j^Svyi4p|?L.;R^ 146/2017 Mr. Osama Suhail/ Ms; l^amana Suhail and Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AdvS r'" For the Respondents : Mr. Osamk SuhMiip^s-^Samaj^^^^^^ and Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advs. in|l|L^.M4^i(||y Mr.R.D.SmKS^it^j^P^ 172/2017 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ^JEEV SACHDE^A ' jntoSEH' SANJEEV SACHDEVA. J CRL.REV.P. 146/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 172/2017 1. These cross-petitions impugn order dated 19.01.2017, whereby, the Family Court has disposed of the interim maintenance application filed by the Wife - Divya Kapoor and directed the husband - Pankaj Chawla to pay CRL.REV.P. 146/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 172/2017 Page / ofio- a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month to the wife. CrLRev.P. 146/2017 has been filed by the husband, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance and Crl.Rev. P. 172/2017 has been filed by the wife contending that the interim maintenance, assessed by the Trial Court, is on a lower side and way below the expenditure being incurred by the wife. 2. Parties married on 30.01.2013 according to Hindu rights and ceremonies. They separated on 10.04.2014. Subject application has been filed under Section 125 Criminal Prpeedtire Code, 1973;^j:CrT.C. for short) on 25.07.2014 by the wife claiiningf rnaihtenM^ the rate^of Rs.60,000/- per month besides litigation expehses of'Rs0%GbO/-. It is cdnfehded that the wife has no source of incpthd^pf her'own^^^^^^ out the daily expenses and day-to-day needs. . s: , / • I . 1.. . V 3. The application has been 6^pPsef.by|i^e husband, inter alia, on the ground that the wife is highpsiqi^^ is no justification for ^ f. ij' granting maintenance to her.rTt'ls4boMcna^c45Bat she has a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administrati&iimdlM&fhe capacity and capability to maintain herself to earn her livelihood and is deliberately, willfully, knowingly and intentionally! littinig;;idle and has|9Pt made any honest and sincere attempt to apply for any job. 4. It is further contended that the husband is already paying ad-interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- and the wife has failed to show actual or real expenditure and, as such, there is no justification for granting her maintenance over and above the said amount. CRL.REVP. 146/2017 & CRL.REV.P. 172/2017 Page 2 ofio ■I t 5. The Trial Court, by the irnpugried order, has found that prima facie the affidavit of income, assets and expenditure, filed by the parties, show that the husband is a man of means and has sufficient source of income to maintain his wife and, accordingly, assessed the interim maintenance at Rs.24,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the husband, during arguments, has relied on a report of CIBIL pertaining to the wife, wherein, CIBIL has reported that the annual income of the wife Ts; Rs.9,58;320/^ The report of GIBE, is disputed by the learned counsel appemilg for the inter alia, on the ground that the-report does riot tdiseiosd on: what basis it is reported that the wife is earning and;, ha^yariiriripi^llih as specified^ .therein. Further, it is contended that isincp the,}husl3and works in a Bank, he has manipulated the report and further that an individual has no control or is not privy to the documents, based on ^hich, such a report is created. Analysis and Reasoning 7. Perusal of the recor(i'^^9j^^|^at!\the'^iiusband has not placed any document to ^ show that the wife is presently employed or working and is having any income. The ^report pf CIBIL per cannot be relied on to esta,blish employment or soufce'^of ifficom^' ^ does not disclose any basis on -which income has been reported by CIBIL. There is no reference to any f