Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) court denies interim maintenance under DV Act to wife qualified as beautician

Two readers sent copy of this recent Delhi court’s judgment about interim maintenance, and thanks to both!

While many people were commenting after reading the newspaper reports of this judgment, I don’t think the newspaper reports mentioned that there was a child who was being taken care of by respondent-husband.  I wonder if the decision had been otherwise had the petitioner-wife been taking care of the child, which is the usual scenario.  In fact, I think that’s the crucial point which has gone in favour of husband/father.

Another possible conclusion: As far as denying maintenance is concerned, better to have a wife qualified as a beautician, than a wife with qualifications like MA or PhD, but no work experience whatsoever.

Important points of judgment below:

ii)  Whether the domestic violence has been committed upon the complainant by the respondents     :Perusal of complaint as well as DIR prima facie show that complainant has been a victim of domestic violence. The allegations and counter allegations leveled  by the parties against each other shall be proved only after leading evidence.

…

(c)  that he does not have any movable, immovable property and investment in his name. He is unemployed and having the responsibilty  to maintain the minor child, who is under his care and custody,

…

6.    It be observed that respondents have not filed any document to prove complainant’s employment and income. Similarly, the complainant has also not filed any conclusive documentary proof except copy of visiting card of Jagdamba Motor Service Station to prove the  employment and income of the respondent no. 1.  It is noticeable that  the name of respondent no. 1 is not printed on the visiting card but his name is mentioned in  someone’s handwriting. The respondent no. 1 has taken the  plea that the name and phone number appearing on the said visiting card,  do not belong to him.  It appears that the claim of the parties in this regard can be proved only by leading evidence. The complainant has admitted doing the course of Beautician, however, she has not furnished any explanation as to why she is sitting idle. In today’s scenario even women are expected to contribute economically in running the house. Admittedly, the complainant is having such professional skill and qualification that she may not find any difficulty in searching a suitable job for herself.    The court is of the view that  the present case is the fit case, where Interim Monetary  Relief should not be granted in favour of the complainant, hence, Interim Monetary Relief is declined.

Full judgment text below:

IN  THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
                             TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

CC No. 139/1/13

PS:  BURARI

SMT.  SUMAN                                                            ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SH.  SANDEEP & ORS.                                                    ………RESPONDENTS

ORDER

1.     By this order,  I shall dispose off Interim Application,  seeking  Monetary Relief

u/s  20 read with  23 of  DV Act of the complainant filed along with the complaint.

The  complainant has not pressed for any other interim relief.
2.      I  have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties  and perused the DIR and  entire case

file with their assistance.

3.     The present proceedings are under Domestic Violence Act, therefore, the Court is

required to consider two important points :

                                                                                     
i)   Whether there is domestic relationship between the parties                     : Admittedly,
respondent no. 1  is  the husband of  the complainant and other respondents are her

in laws and all of them  lastly resided together at the shared household. In view of the

facts and circumstances, domestic relationship between the parties is proved. 

ii)  Whether the domestic violence has been committed upon the complainant by the

                
respondents     :Perusal of complaint as well as DIR prima facie show that complainant
has been a victim of domestic violence. The allegations and counter allegations

leveled  by the parties against each other shall be proved only after leading evidence.

Respondent no. 1 being husband of  complainant,  is legally and morally bound to

CC No. 139/1/13  PS: BURARI                            SUMAN VS. SANDEEP & ORS.  1/5

maintain her as per means and resources available to him, therefore, complainant is

entitled to interim monetary relief  as claimed in the application.

4.       Now coming to Interim Monetary Relief, the complainant has claimed herself to

be a house wife without any source of income and completely dependent upon her
parents.  In respect to  employment and income of respondent no. 1, she has

claimed that  he is  running a service center and  earning Rs. 60,000/­ per month.

She has also claimed that respondent no. 1 has no other liability except to maintain

her. On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 has denied all the contentions of the
complainant and claimed that complainant does not require any maintenance as

admittedly she is a Trained Beautician and working in a Beauty Parlour at Burari and

earning handsome amount of rupees 15,000/­ per month. In respect to his own

income, respondent no. 1 has claimed himself unemployed and dependent upon his
parents for his & minor child’s  maintenance.  He has further claimed that  his name

mentioned in the visiting card  furnished by the complainant is wrong. In fact, the

name Monu is actually of brother in law of respondent no. 2.  The telephone number

mentioned against the said name belongs to someone else.

5.    As per court directions, the parties have filed their detailed income affidavit in
terms   of   judgment   Puneet   Kaur   judgment   from   the   date   of   marriage

wherein,complainant has made the  following declarations :­

                  th
(a)  that she is 8  class pass and  has done Beautician Course before the marriage. She
does not have experience in past occupation,

(b)  that she is dependent upon her parents for the maintenance, who have the

responsibilities of maintaining total  06 family members,  
(c)   that she does not have any movable, immovable properties and investments in

her name and all her stridhan / jeweleries are in the possession of the respondents,

(d)   that she incurs Rs. 1000/­  per hearing on the conveyance, Rs. 100/­ per month as

mobile charges, Rs. 1000/­ per month  upon household expenses,  Rs. 250/­ per
month on medical treatment,Rs.  1000/­ upon  festivals,  Rs. 1000/­ on Birthday

Ceremonies,

CC No. 139/1/13  PS: BURARI                            SUMAN VS. SANDEEP & ORS.  2/5

(e)  that Rs. 6,50,000/­  in the marriage, Rs. 80,000/­  in Kua  Pujan Ceremony were

incurred,

(f)  that she uses public transport for travelling and visits private hospital for the

medical treatment,
(g)   that petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 484/14,  PS Burari are pending in the

court. 

        The respondent no.1  has made the following declarations  :­

                   th
(a)   that he is  5  class pass without any professional qualification  and experience of
past occupation,
(b)   that his family consists of total 06 members,  he and his son are dependent upon

his parents for their maintenance, 

(c)  that he does not have any movable, immovable property and investment in his

name. He is unemployed and having the responsibilty  to maintain the minor child,

who is under his care and custody,
(d)  that he incurs Rs.  2,000/­ per month on  household expenses, Rs. 10,000/­ on

legal expenses, Rs.  2000/­ on dependent family members,Rs.  500/­ on festivals and

Rs.  50,000/­ upon the marriage,

(e)  that he belongs to lower class family, travels by foot within the city  and visits

government hospitals for treatment,
(f)  that he and other family members are living in a rented accommodation,

(g)   that  two cases are pending against him.

6.    It be observed that respondents have not filed any document to prove

complainant’s employment and income. Similarly, the complainant has also not filed

any conclusive documentary proof except copy of visiting card of Jagdamba Motor
Service Station to prove the  employment and income of the respondent no. 1.  It is

noticeable that  the name of respondent no. 1 is not printed on the visiting card but

his name is mentioned in  someone’s handwriting. The respondent no. 1 has taken

the  plea that the name and phone number appearing on the said visiting card,  do

not belong to him.  It appears that the claim of the parties in this regard can be

CC No. 139/1/13  PS: BURARI                            SUMAN VS. SANDEEP & ORS.  3/5

proved only by leading evidence. The complainant has admitted doing the course of

Beautician, however, she has not furnished any explanation as to why she is sitting

idle. In today’s scenario even women are expected to contribute economically in

running the house. Admittedly, the complainant is having such professional skill and
qualification that she may not find any difficulty in searching a suitable job for

herself.    The court is of the view that  the present case is the fit case, where Interim

Monetary  Relief should not be granted in favour of the complainant, hence,

Interim Monetary Relief is declined.

7.      Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to expression on the merits of the case. 
8.       Put up for CE on 29.10.2015.        Complainant is directed to file her affidavit,

advance copy of which be supplied to the opposite party  one week before the next

date of hearing.  It is clarified that only 03 opportunities shall be given for leading CE.

Announced in the open Court
on 03.08.2015                                                       (MONA TARDI KERKETTA )
                                                                      MM­02/MAHILA COURT
                                                                THC: Delhi: 03.08.2015

CC No. 139/1/13  PS: BURARI                            SUMAN VS. SANDEEP & ORS.  4/5

                                                                       CC No. 48/1/11
                                                                       PS: BURARI
                                                                       03.08.2015
               Lawyers are on strike today.

Present:­  Complainant in person.
               Respondent no. 1 and 3 in person.

               Other respondents are absent.

               Matter is fixed for clarification/order on the interim application.

               No clarification is required.

               Vide separate detailed order, the interim application  of complainant is

dismissed.

               Put up for CE on 29.10.2015.

               Complainant is directed to file evidence by way of affidavit and
documents, if any,  with advance copy to the opposite party a week prior to NDOH

against receiving.  Complainant is further directed to bring  complete documents, if

any,  on the NDOH. It is clarified that only 03 opportunities shall be given for leading

CE.  

                                                   
                                                            (MONA TARDI  KERKETTA)
                                                            MM­02/MAHILA COURT
                                                             THC/DELHI/03.08.2015

CC No. 139/1/13  PS: BURARI                            SUMAN VS. SANDEEP & ORS.  5/5