Smt Seema Bansal vs. Shri Bhupesh Bansal
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Smt. Seema Bansal, filed a petition under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash or modify an order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Family Court. The Family Court, in an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, granted interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the petitioner and directed the respondent, Shri Bhupesh Bansal, to continue paying the education expenses of their two children. The Family Court assessed the respondent's income at ₹55,000/- per month based on his salary slips, considering both fixed salary and variable performance bonus. The petitioner contended that the Family Court erred in assessing the respondent's income, pointing to his directorship in 10 companies, a concealed bank account, and his alleged involvement in his mother's business, M/s Krishna Construction. The respondent argued he was merely an Assistant Manager at IREO, denied any connection to M/s Krishna Construction, and stated the Axis Bank account belonged to that firm.
Held
The Court held that the respondent's admission of being a 'director' in companies listed by the petitioner, even if allegedly 'dummy', casts doubt on his actual role and income. It acknowledged the common tendency in matrimonial disputes for parties to conceal true income and the court's permission to make reasonable estimations in such scenarios, citing Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde. The Court found it improbable that the respondent's 80-year-old mother solely manages an active construction business, and discrepancies in pay slips further cast doubt on the respondent's real income. The Court affirmed the father's continuing obligation towards his major son's education and expenses, referencing Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors v. Inderpaul Aggarwal, and stated that an unmarried daughter can claim maintenance, with her alleged income to be determined at trial. The Court reiterated the husband's sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife, citing Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan and Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, emphasizing that an able-bodied husband cannot avoid this obligation. Consequently, the interim monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/- was deemed unreasonable and enhanced to ₹30,000/-. The enhanced maintenance is payable from 01.01.2024. The Trial Court is directed to pass the final order uninfluenced by these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the learned Family Court erred in its assessment of the respondent's income for the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, considering the petitioner's allegations of concealed income and multiple business interests? 2. Whether the respondent's obligation to maintain his major son and unmarried daughter continues, and if so, to what extent, given the rising cost of living and the petitioner's alleged lack of gainful employment? The petitioner argued that the Family Court mechanically assessed the respondent's income without considering evidence of his directorship in 10 companies, a concealed bank account, and his de facto control over M/s Krishna Construction, suggesting his true income far exceeded the assessed ₹55,000/-. She also contended that she is not gainfully employed and struggles to manage household expenses with minimal assistance. The respondent countered that he is only an Assistant Manager at IREO, has no connection to M/s Krishna Construction (owned by his mother), and the bank account in question belongs to that firm. He also stated his personal expenses amount to ₹4000/- per month.
Sections Cited
Section 125, Section 397, Section 401, Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
The present petition is filed under Sections 397, 401, and 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing/modifying the order dated 30.09.2022 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’), passed by the learned Family Court, North West, Delhi in MT No. 403/2019 titled as ‘Seema Bansal v. Bhupesh Bansal’.
The learned Family Court, by the impugned order, in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the CrPC had granted interim maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the petitioner, from the date of moving the application till further orders. It was also observed by the learned Family Court that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16 petitioner is residing with her two children and the education expenses of both the children will continue to be taken up by the respondent as he is paying the same voluntarily.
The learned Family Court considered the salary slips of the respondent and after considering the fixed/basic salary and also the monthly variable performance bonus, assessed the income of the respondent as ₹55000/- per month.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court had erroneously and mechanically assessed the income of the respondent and had not relied on the documents produced by the petitioner which show the respondent as a Director in 10 companies.
He submits that the respondent has a concealed bank account with Axis Bank in which a sum of ₹1,00,000/- has been deposited by him in a PPF reflective of the fact that the income of the respondent is much beyond the admitted ₹50,000/- per month.
He submits that there are other documents on record which clearly indicate that the respondent has multiple sources of income and that the respondent is actually the person behind the business of M/s Krishna Construction, even though the sole proprietor of the business is his mother, who is aged about 80 years and is incapable of running any business.
He submits that the petitioner is not gainfully employed and has been managing the expenses of her son and daughter, who reside with her, with minimal assistance from the respondent. He submits that the son is a college student while the daughter is unmarried and is a young professional.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16 that he is merely working as an Assistant Manager with Indian Real Estate Opportunities (fund) (hereafter ‘IREO’). He has placed various letters from IREO on record to substantiate the same.
He submits that M/s Krishna Construction Co. has nothing to do with him as he is neither the proprietor nor an employee of the said company but rather the company is owned by his mother Mrs. Krishna Bansal as evidenced by the firm registration certificate.
He submits that he is spending ₹4000/- per month towards his own food, clothing, and medical expenses. He further submits that the Axis Bank account does not belong to him rather is in the name of M/s Krishna Construction Co, the sole proprietor of which is his mother Mrs. Krishna Bansal.
I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.
The learned family court observed that the wife placed results from google searches to establish that the respondent is a director with 10 companies.
On being asked, the respondent states that he is a dummy director in the companies whose list has been produced by the petitioner.
The impugned order also records that the respondent has placed various letters to show that he works as an Assistant Manager with IREO and that Sunflower Real Tech Pvt. Ltd from which another salary slip was brought on record is the sister company of IREO. The learned family court also observed that the GST registration certificate as well as an additional affidavit file by the respondent shows that the proprietor of M/s Krishna Construction Co is the respondent’s mother, Mrs. Krishna This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16 Bansal.
The respondent is admittedly a “director” in the list of companies as produced by the petitioner, albeit allegedly “dummy”. The same casts a doubt as to the actual role of the respondent in the companies.
It is common knowledge and has been observed by this Court in many cases that it is a normal tendency of the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes not to disclose their true income. Thus, the possibility of the petitioner undermining his income to avoid paying maintenance of an appropriate amount to the respondent cannot be ruled out at this stage. The Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning. [Ref: Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde : 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622]
In the opinion of this court, given the respondent mother is around 80 years old, it is improbable that she is handling an active construction business alone. Moreover, the discrepancy in pay slips casts a doubt in ascertaining the real income of the respondent. Thus, the role of the respondent in the said companies aforenoted as well as in M/s Krishna Construction Co is prima facie questionable. The possibility that the respondent is undermining his income cannot be ruled out.
It is admitted that the son is pursuing a ‘Bachelors in Business Administration’ from Guru Gobind Singh University. It is clear that the father’s obligations towards his son does not stop when his son reaches 18 years of age. The court cannot shut its eyes to the rising cost of living, moreover, the entire burden of expenses for a student cannot fall on the mother.
It is settled law that a father is not absolved of his This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16 responsibilities towards a major son as soon as he reaches 18 years of age, this Court in Urvashi Aggarwal & Ors v. Inderpaul Aggarwal [Crl.ma, 11083/2021], observed as under:
“12. …. It cannot be said that the obligation of a father would come to an end when his son reaches 18 years of age and the entire burden of his education and other expenses would fall only on the mother. The amount earned by the mother has to be spent on her and on her children without any contribution by the father because the son has attained majority. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the rising cost of living. It is not reasonable to expect that the mother alone would bear the entire burden for herself and for the son with the small amount of maintenance given by the respondent herein towards the maintenance of his daughter. The amount earned by the petitioner No.1 will not be sufficient for the family of three, i.e. the mother and two children to sustain themselves. The amount spent on the petitioner No.2 will not be available for the petitioner No.
This Court is therefore inclined to grant a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner No.1 from the date of petitioner No.2 attaining the age of majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning whichever is earlier…”
The daughter is admittedly staying with the mother. The law recognizes that an unmarried daughter even if attained majority and has completed studies can claim maintenance from her father.
The respondent’s obligation towards the daughter cannot be severed on account of the alleged income she is generating. The contention that the daughter is earning and thus, the petitioner does not require additional sum for maintenance would be determined after the evidence is led and cannot be presumed at this stage while considering the application for interim maintenance.
It is trite law that a husband cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan : (2015) 5 SCC 705, observed as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16 “14. …. It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right.” (emphasis supplied)
The learned family court observed that the petitioner is not gainfully employed and does not have a source of income. It has also been argued by the petitioner that the amount granted by the Family Court falls short of covering the essential living and daily expenses for her family, particularly in the face of rising costs.
In this court’s opinion, it is incumbent on the respondent who is an able-bodied man to financially support his wife who is admittedly taking care of children.
The husband is required to earn money even by physical This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16 labor, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. [Ref: Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314]
In such circumstances, in my opinion, the interim monthly maintenance of ₹20,000/-, including rent and other ancillary expenses, appears to be not reasonable. The interim maintenance is, therefore, enhanced to ₹30,000/-. 27. It is not disputed that the impugned order is only an order of interim maintenance. The defences raised by the parties along with the allegations and counter allegations would be the subject matter of trial and would be decided after the parties have led their evidence.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, balancing the equities, I am of the opinion, that the enhanced interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- is payable from 01.01.2024. 29. The learned Trial Court is directed to pass the final order uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. AMIT MAHAJAN, J JULY 25, 2024 ‘Aman’/’ID’ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/07/2024 at 12:24:16
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.