New Microsoft Word Document

 HOW TO WRITE FIRST APPEAL UNDER RTI   

One has to follow the following guidelines while filing 1st Appeal under Right to Information Act 2005.

Want to Share your Views with Us ? Click Here                                                                                                                                 Top

1. First appeal has to be filed within 30 days from date of receipt of decision of CPIO by the applicant with First Appellate Authority (FAA).

2. If no reply is received within 30 days (35 days if application is lodged with ACPIO) from the date of receipt by CPIO (ACPIO), then first appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date when reply was due from CPIO.

3. Find out name, designation and address of first appellate authority from the decision letter of CPIO. If no reply is received, visit the web-site of the govt. dept/office/undertaking and refer RTI icon for these details.

4. Despite above efforts, if you are not in a position to locate details of FAA, address your first appeal as under: The First Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005C/O. Head of _______________Dept/officeand mention address of CPIO’s dept/office

5. If you want to be present during the first appeal hearing, mention it at the end of your appeal.

6. No fee is prescribed for first appeal for Public Authorities under the Central Government.

7. Some States have a prescribed fee and a specified format for First Appeal. Please check RTI Rules of individual Sates regarding First Appeal fees (if any), mode of payment, format (if any) if your First Appeal is to a Public Authority falling under State Government.

8. All photocopies of enclosures mentioned in the appeal should be self-attested by the applicant under the word ‘Attested’ and full signature.

9. Retain one set of appeal and postal receipt and AD receipt.

10. You can deliver personally also, but mailing by registered ad/speed post is preferable. Couriers should be avoided.

11. FAA has to decide on the appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of first appeal. He can take a further 15 days (total 45 days), provided he gives the reasons for the delay in writing.

12. The FAA can give either a "spoken" order or a written order.

13. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has issued specific instructions to FAA's. These can be referred to here:

COMPLAINT UNDER RTI ACT 2005

COMPLAINT UNDER RTI ACT 

Section 18 of the act empowers Central Information Commission [CIC] and also State Information Commissions [SICs] to enquire into complaints against Public Authority, Public Information Officer [PIO] and First Appellate Authority [FAA]. The section has provided for enquiring and taking corrective steps by the respective commissions in respect of majority of problems that the applicant/appellant may face in getting information to which he is entitled to under this act. Situations under which complaint can be lodged

1. No PIO or APIO or FAA is appointed by public authority.2. PIO/APIO/FAA has refused to receive application/appeal.3. No reply is received from PIO & FAA within time limit fixed by the act.4. Reply received from PIO is unsatisfactory, irrelevant, unreadable,

misleading, unclear, false, incomplete etc.5. Information has been wrongly and unjustifiably refused.

6. When applicant is required to pay fee/charges in excess of those prescribed in RTI rules applicable.

7. PIO/APIO is not accessible in person or by post and his whereabouts are not easily available/prominently exhibited.

8. Proactive disclosure under section 4 [1] has not been made or it is not made publicly available/accessible.

9. PIO/FAA has wrongly refused inspection of records of public authority or reasonable cooperation is not extended during inspection.

10. PIO, FAA or any other person directly/indirectly intimidates or ill-treats or pressurizes the applicant/appellant or restraints him from exercising his right under the act.

11. PIO/FAA disobeys orders of CIC/SIC.12. Any other situation where the citizen has been wrongly

restrained/refused access to information to which he is entitled under the act.

13. Any other violation of provisions of the act by public authority, PIO or FAA.

How to lodge complaint

1. Complaints relating to information of central government public authorities are to be lodged with Central Information Commission [CIC], August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Kama Place,NEW DELHI 110066. [www.cic.gov.in]In case of information of public authorities of State Govts, complaints have to be lodged with respective State Information Commissions [SICs]. Details are available on official websites of State Govts. /State Information Commissions. Please visit http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/ OR www.rti.gov.in for statewise details.

2. CIC and some of SICs have prescribed minimum information or papers that must be submitted with the complaint. Some SICs have prescribed format for complaint. For CIC and those SICs, which have not prescribed format, complainants can use guidelines and format as available at http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/how-to...l-under-rti-3/with minor changes

3. CIC does not charge any fee for complaints. Some SICs charge fees for this purpose.

4. There is no time limit for lodging complaint, but it is advisable to lodge the same within reasonable time of happening of cause for complaint.

5. Send copy of complaint to PIO/FAA simultaneous with CIC/SIC. At times PIO/FAA solves your problem before hearing at CIC/SIC.

6. Ask for punishment to PIO/FAA under the act and also claim compensation for not getting the information in time.

7. Information Commissions are vested with powers of Civil Courts in respect of summoning, enforcing attendance, giving evidence on oath, producing records, etc.

8. Complaint is in addition to Second/final Appeal available to applicants.9. It is advisable to simultaneously approach head of the organization or

govt. dept at capital-level [secretary/chief secretary] for his intervention. This may help get information.

10. After lodging complaint, please check from concerned website if the same is registered and registration number and status.

11. In case of information pertaining to life and liberty, the complaint should be conspicuously branded as “Life & Liberty-Urgent” so that priority is accorded for its disposal before it is too late. Follow-up through email is recommended if available with SIC.

12. CIC/SICs are flooded with appeals/complaints and there is huge pendency. Thus it may take 12 to 36 months before complaint is heard.

13. It is advisable to take free help from experienced RTI activists/NGO if locally available so that matter can be effectively and properly represented through complaint.

WE GET GOVT WE DESERVE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN 2012?Time limits specified in the RTI Act

Notes: 

3rd Party can be anyone other than the citizen applying for information

Please account for adequate time for postal delays

Various time limit has been prescribed under which the information can be obtained under Right to Information Act. These time limits are prescribed by the Act itself, and failing which an RTI Applicant can approach appropriate authorities for relief.

Following are the various time limits specified in the RTI Act 2005

For matters involving "Life and Liberty", the time limit for the PIO to provide information is 48 Hours.

For PIO to reply to application

30 days from date of receipt of application

For PIO to transfer to another PA under Sec 6(3)

5 days from date of receipt of application

For PIO to issue notice to 3rd Party

5 days from date of receipt of application

For 3rd Party to make a representation to PIO

10 days from receipt of notice from PIO

For PIO to reply to application if 3rdParty involved 

40 days from date of receipt of application

For applicant to make First Appeal

30 days from date of receipt of PIO’s reply or from date when reply was to be received

For First Appellate Authority to pass an order

30 days from receipt of First Appeal ORMaximum 45 days, if reasons for delay are given in writing

For applicant to make Second Appeal before CIC/SIC

90 days from receipt of First Appeal orders or from the date when orders were to be received

For CIC/SIC to decide Second Appeal

No time limit specified

The detailed time schedule has been compiled by Raveena_a in the blog entry. The document has been copied here.Tags: time limit, first appeal, second appeal, application, 3rd party, third party

1. Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005

The Second Schedule of the RTI Act exempts certain Public Authorities under the Central Government from disclosure of information under the RTI Act 2005. 

However, these Public Authorities have to respond to RTI Applications which pertain to subjects of Human Rights and Corruption. As per Section 5(1) of the RTI Act and the instructions of DoPT, they are also supposed to have a PIO and a AA.(Please see: http://www.righttoinformation.gov.in...24_2007_IR.pdf)

As on 28th March 2008, the following is the list in the Second Schedule:

1. Intelligence Bureau.2. Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.5. Directorate of Enforcement.6. Narcotics Control Bureau.7. Aviation Research Centre.8. Special Frontier Force.9. Border Security Force.10. Central Reserve Police Force.11. Indo-Tibetan Border Police.12. Central Industrial Security Force.13. National Security Guards.14. Assam Rifles.15. Sashastra Seema Bal. 16. Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation) .17. National Technical Research Organisation.18. Financial Intelligence Unit, India.19. Special Protection Group.20. Defence Research and Development Organisation.21. Border Road Development Board.22. National Security Council Secretariat

[SIZE=4][SIZE=2]Similarly, some States within the union has also exempted certain Public Authorities in the respective states, from the purview of the Act. Please check separately for each State.

To read the full act visit here: http://act.rtiindia.info

NOTE 1: Vide a gazette Notification dated 8th October 2008, one more organisation was added to the exempted list:

22. National Security Council Secretariat

NOTE 2: Vide gazette notification dated 09 June 2011, 3 more organisations were added to the exempted list:

23. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)24. National investigation Agency (NIA)25. National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)Tags: second schedule, exemption 

Divorce made easy –

LATEST JUDGEMENTS

 In the previous edition, we have discussed about Adultery In this edition

let us know about cruelty. 

Under clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of section 13 and under sub-section (1)

of section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cruelty is a ground of divorce

as well as judicial separation respectively. Whether a particular act or

conduct complained of is covered under the ground of cruelty or not, will

always be decided on facts and circumstances in each case.

What is Cruelty? 

Under the English Law, legal concept of cruelty is conduct of such a

character as to cause danger to life, limb or health (physical or mental) or

as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. Before the

amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was brought in the year 1976,

the rigid meaning and interpretation was given to the ground of cruelty. But

even before the amendment, the Supreme Court in Dastane Vs. Dastane,

AIR 1975 SC 1534, tried to give a literal meaning to the ground of cruelty

applicable in terms of divorce or judicial separation. 

Though the concept of English Law and the Hindu Marriage Act in terms of

cruelty as a ground for divorce or judicial separation is more or less the

same, yet the learned Judges in India still hold that marriage is a sacrament

taking into consideration the social and cultural conditions of our country.

In Sukumar Vs Manohar Shivaram Jagesha, the Court observed: 

The question whether a particular act or behaviour would amount to cruelty

or not depends upon the character, way of life of the parties, their social

and economic conditions, their status, customs and traditions. Each case is

to be decided on the facts of its own. The judges and the lawyers should not

import their own notions of life while dealing with matrimonial cases. 

Classification of Cruelty: 

Cruelty is classified into two heads. 

1. Physical cruelty and 

2. Mental cruelty

Physical Cruelty:

It is a settled law that physical violence is not necessary ingredient of

cruelty. Unending accusations and imputations can cause more pain and

misery than a physical beating. Therefore, it goes without saying that the

act of cruelty consists of mental torture or physical violence. If it is a

physical violence, there will be no problem for a court to arrive at a decision

while determining a case presented before it, but in case of mental torture

or harassment, the court finds comparatively more difficult to come to final

conclusion. 

Firstly the court begins its enquiry as to the nature of cruel treatment as

well as the impact of that treatment in the mind of the spouse. Ultimately it

is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account of the nature of

the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse.

Kaushalya Vs Wisakhi Ram: 

The husband had been ill treating the wife and beating her. On one

occasion she had to go to the police station to lodge a complaint against

her husband. The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that according

to the standards of all civilized world these acts would constitute cruelty,

even though injuries might not be serious as to require medical treatment.

Saptmi Vs Jagdish: 

It was held that if a husband constantly abuses and insults the wife and

occasionally resorts to physical violence against her, it amounts to cruelty. 

Conversation with Ambika Soni, Information Broadcasting MinisterBar & Bench News Network

Jun 16, 2010The Union Cabinet on June 10 approved the introduction of Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 to

further amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to include ‘irretrievable

breakdown’ of marriage as another ground for obtaining divorce.

At present under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 a divorce can be claimed under Section 13 on grounds of

adultery, cruelty, desertion, conversion to another religion, unsound mind, virulent and incurable form of

leprosy, disease in communicable form, renouncement of the world and not being heard of alive for a

period of seven years or more. Under Section 13(b) divorce is granted by mutual consent.

Under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, divorce can be granted under Section 27 on grounds similar to

those of Section 13 (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). Section 28 grants divorce on the grounds of living

separately for one year or more or they are not able to live together and mutually agree that marriage

should be dissolved.

The problem surfaces when couples apply for divorce through mutual consent. Either spouse may suffer

due to one of them abstaining himself or herself from court proceedings and thus keeping the trial

inconclusive.

The press release by the Law Ministry said that this amendment has been recommended by the Law

Commission of India in its 217 th   Report on ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage- another ground for

divorce’ and on observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jorden Diengdeh vs.

S.S. Chopra and Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli.

Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate says, “Irretrievable breakdown would be great for a small proportion of the

elite population. It’s definitely the way for the future but it gives a complete 360-degree to the concept of

marriage among Hindus being sacred. If it means consensual divorce without waiting for six months under

current law its very welcome. The one-year moratorium for filing for divorce should also be done away with.

Vast majority of Hindu women in India i.e. rural, semi-literate need to be protected in matrimony and they

could be affected by a unilateral irretrievable breakdown clause”.

Dr. Purnima Singh, Psychologist, IIT Delhi says, “As a psychologist and a social scientist I feel marriage as

an institution is one of the strengths of our society. It gives a kind of stability in personal relationships,

which in turn is the crucible for long-term happiness and well-being. I do understand that the present

amendment is to relax the conservative approach to matrimonial disputes; but I also feel that the youth

today are becoming unrestrained in their personal and social relationships especially in urban areas and

lack the patience that is needed in building relationships.”

She adds that there are chances of this being misused if it is made a law. “Too much of freedom is not

good. The value of stable relationships should be emphasized and community based efforts are needed to

make today's youth appreciate the benefit of stable relationships. Such a provision (the present

amendment) should be allowed under very special circumstances with both female and male being allowed

to go in for it especially when other efforts fail. This amendment does reflect the urban reality but while

making these amendments we forget that a large population in India is still in the villages where despite

governmental efforts large number of people are illiterate. Do we look at this reality when we go for these

amendments? What effect such amendments will bring on the society should be considered.”

When compared to the Western world, divorce rates in India is about 1 percent while 40 percent of all

marriages in the US end up in a divorce. This is also because the ease of availability of divorce, in many

states in the United States, is between 24 hours to 96 hours while in India the process of obtaining a

divorce by mutual consent takes years if not decades in some cases. With this change in legislation, the

Government has made it easy and less burdensome for the courts to clear divorce proceedings.

 Bar and Bench in conversation with Ambika Soni, Information and Broadcasting Minister

Why did the Government propose an additional ground i.e. ‘irretrievable breakdown’ to the existing

law for obtaining a divorce?

Based on the recommendations of the Law Commission, the Supreme Court and inputs from different

quarters, this had been due for a long time. In cases where couples seeking a divorce by mutual consent,

approach the court and one of them wants it done quicker, this ground comes into play. Under this provision

the party seeking an expeditious divorce won’t feel harassed if the other fails to come to court or willfully

avoids and causes delay.

What are your thoughts on the system of obtaining a divorce in India?

Marriage according to me is sanctity. I still hold a lot of value in marriage and more when you have a family.

One should think very carefully before going in for a divorce.

As a Cabinet Minister, this change is yet another clause to make it faster in getting a divorce and it’s better

to facilitate this as the present system does not make people hallow in marriage specially in cases where

marriage does not seem to be working.

Isn’t our law being too liberal all of a sudden? Just recently the Supreme Court ruled in property

rights for children born out of live-in relationships. What are your views on this changing trend?

Change with progress, one should change with the times. Each generation looks and perceives ‘values’ in a

different manner. We have to make law more adaptable and not have it so antiquated and rigid.

PRESS STATEMENT by Pariwarik Suraksha 

Delhi, dated 25 November 2006 GENERAL PRINCIPALS OF APPLICATION OF LAW AND STATUTES IN RESPECT OF MATRIMONIAL STATUTES TO PREVENT ABUSE FOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES BY WOMAN, HER PARENTS AND THEIR HIDDEN ACCOMPLICES, IF ANY. 

JUDICIAL AND POLICE AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLES 141 and 144 of the CONSTITUTION IS TO PROTECT CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE GIVEN BY PEOPLE OF INDIA TO THEMSELVES, FOR ORDERLY NATIONAL INTEGRITY, SECURITY, SECULARITY, DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLIC INDIA THROUGH ETHICAL PROCEDURES AS LAID IN STATUTES AS MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS. 

1.      “Understating Wrong Implementation Of Crl. Act No. 46 of 1983 (worst than misuse)”: This is to help women also for filing of true complaint if any against husband and his relatives in proper manner i.e. by observing qualifying clause  u/s. 6 of Crl. Act No. 46 of 1983 that she has to file her case to the magistrate after

taking an oath i.e. under affidavit making complaint to magistrate as a private complaint case. 498A IPC isolated from Crl. Act No. 46 of 1983 and moved additionally to the said new domestic violence law and blended to contaminate adulterate the Crl. Act No.46/1983’s section 2 creating section 498A IPC.

2.      There are two sides of the coin of 498A IPC which is a part of the Crl. Act No.46/1983  i.e. dowry death within 7years of marriage cognizable offence, and the other side of the coin of 498A IPC being the living woman who has not died because of "willful" dowry torture, if any, it has to be by way of private complaint case to Judicial Magistrate First Class / Metropolitan Magistrate who will take cognizance of the complaint, if found to his judicial satisfaction,  and issue summons to the other side directing them to bring with them their arrangement for taking bail. No arrest in latter part. 

3.      The wrong implementation victimizes husband and his relatives by way of complaint by “living” woman to police authority to erringly be understood as ‘cognizable’ to abuse the police power of arrest despite the Supreme Court of India has ruled that even in cognizable cases, it is not necessary to arrest in each case depending upon the circumstance. This is matrimonial case u/s. 498A IPC not dealing with general criminals.

4.      When special law of 498A IPC is accompanied with Indian penal code's sections in addition to 498A IPC, it is a clear abuse of criminal process i.e. using other penal sections in additions to 498A IPC is sure indicator of abuse of criminal process to cause arrest for ulterior motives.

5.      The abusers of criminal process and civil law abusers, in matrimonial matters and those who abet are equally to be punished as held in this court’s judgment of 19/7/2005 (Supra).

6.      If there is no offence made out in special law like 498A IPC as 498A IPC is used as an excuse to arrest with police powers so that the husband  and his side are blackmailed for sure extortion attempts for “snatching” riches by extortion under threat of a criminal case (u/s. Sec.389 IPC) for getting amongst others a forced mutual divorce which is also an open fact that 498A IPC abuse of criminal process leads to mutual divorce as a essential reward to which the judicial authority become party despite the cognizable side of 498A IPC is non-compoundable.

7.      Using of additionally other sections of IPC at time of “using” section 498A IPC that also has ingredients of dowry demand and those similar to section 323, 504, 506, 511 of the IPC and section of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 is a repetition for ulterior motives by the person and/or authority using it for abusing of police powers to arrest abetting the woman and her side to have high authority in demanded extortion.

 (i) Section 498A IPC vis-à-vis sections 2 to 7 of the Crl. Act No.46 of 1983 show the intention of the legislation: (ii) 498A IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Cruelty/Harassment explained as willful conduct for causing mental or physical injury in any manner or leading to dowry death: Imprisonment up to 3 years i.e. three years:

Two sides of the coin of section 498A IPC illustrated:A. Dowry death by suicide that will lead to F.I.R. to police officer in charge of a police station. Cognizable. (See qualifying Section 6). Cognizable. Non-Compoundable. (Non-Bailable)B. Cruelty/Harassment allegations to be made by living woman to the Judicial magistrate First Class as “private” complaint case and examined by the JMFC accordingly. (See qualifying Section 6). Thus Non-Cognizable and Compoundable. (Bailable) (iii) Kindly refer to Apex Court’s directives in its judgment on 19/7/2005 (Supra) that Dowry death and Cruelty cannot be considered same through a straitjacket formula. Despite this, both sides of the intra-vires law 498A IPC are being treated as cognizable offence i.e. death of living women and cruelty to living woman for sake of causing arrest without the woman giving her statement on oath before the magistrate.

 (iv)The following sections’ alleged offences are incorporated into the said

498A IPC vis-à-vis section 2 to 7 of the Crl. Act no.46 of 1983 mentioned below for perusal and consideration:

(v). Section 323 of IPC: Punishment for causing voluntarily hurtis upto 1 year and or fine. Non-Cognizable. Bailable.(vi). Section 504 of IPC: Insult intended to provoke breach ofpeace. Upto 2 years and or fine. Non-Cognizable. Bailable.Section 506 of IPC – Criminal intimidation. Upto 2 years.Non-Cognizable. Bailable.(viii) Section 511 of IPC – According to offence is both Cognizableand Non-Cognizable. Accordingly Non-Bailable and Bailableas per attempts to commit offence.

Section 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act 1961 – Penalty fortaking demanding dowry. Punishment minimum 6 monthsto 2 years.(ix) Section 3 of DPA is for giving and taking dowry. Punishableto giver by 5 years and to taker by 5years. The Woman side claiming to give dowry in name of gifts (whether given or not) are liable to punishment upto 5years and fine as mentioned therein. The dowry

takers alleged to have taken do not know that they have taken dowry. The giver of dowry has to be punished and giver cannot be given blanket immunity u/s. 7(3) of the DPA especially when section 498A IPC and other matrimonial woman empowerment law is used by woman. Such blanket immunity in every case, encourages woman to make false allegations of giving dowry despite the so called takers do not take dowry.(x). Section 6 of the DPA permits so called dowry transactions and it is in opposition and in contradictory style to the other sections like Sec. 3 and 4 of the DPA, and it thus cannot be an offence. Even then this law of DPA is abused for harassment to husband and his relatives. 

8.      A criminal process started u/s 498A IPC’s umbrella as cognizable offence though cognizable side of the coin of 498A IPC is not applicable in case of complaint by living woman to police station, the husband is forced to give mutual divorce at instance of court case/police case for making the judicial authority to use the compoundable side of the coin of 498A IPC.

9.      This is the part of legal terrorism by living woman enticed to make such false matrimonial criminal complaint cases.

10.  498A IPC used: “Under duress Divorce” by fraud, illegal means adopted by the woman for abusing criminal process in matrimonial laws like 498A IPC etc. : A. MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE: The District Court ignoring this fact is allowing mutual divorce illegally that mutual divorce under  the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955's Section 13B subsection 1(bb) i.e. Sec. 13B(1)(bb) of HMA along with other section of the HMA is an clear illegal force, fraud and undue offence to allow . 

11.  In such cases mutual divorce application by both is obviously result of consent obtained from husband by force of police cases (criminal process) under umbrella of section 498A IPC, also a fraud an undue influence all rolled into one to which the district judicial authority also become a party if allows divorce.   

12.  Divorce in name of Cruelty by Living woman: When the Court of district Judge comes to know of the woman has filed a police case u/s. 498A IPC to abuse police powers for so called cruelty by husband and his relatives, the woman cannot file a divorce case as a punishment to the husband in various manner under the Hindu Marriage Act:

13.  Because for same offence the husband cannot be intended to be punished two fold by the wife for the same offence irrespective of the result.

14.  160. Because Cruelty for the purpose of section 498A IPC and Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be on same layer of plane of judicial purview:

15.  Because when cruelty is like that explained in 498A IPC read with Crl. Act No.46 of 1983, the woman opts for this section. A closer look shows that it is the police power to arrest attracts more and more increasing numbers of living women finding HAVEN in abusing criminal process for ulterior motives as they are not punished severely if their complaint is found intended for ulterior purposes.

16.  The police officers who all are generally not reigned by lawful powers of judicial officer - judicial officers who do not stop wrong implementation by police officer (civil authority) , are equally responsible for not punishing woman abusing 498A IPC, and other women empowerment provisions for ulterior purposes and their such act is not in good faith that is by not punishing the woman found to abuse the criminal process for ulterior motives.

17.  The Supreme Court of India’s judgment reported in 2005 (6) SCC 281, 2005 AIR has directed in its judgment delivered on 19/7/2005 that the persons who are found to abuse the criminal process are to be stringently punished under the existing provisions of penal law. This equally applies to abusing civil process in matrimonial matters by woman for ulterior motives.

18.  Divorce Application by Woman on Basis of Cruelty underSection 13 of the HMA:. The same cruelty cannot be used also for cruelty u/s. 498A IPC or vice – versa as it is on a different layer and it is for women who want to remain in the house and so file 498A IPC. After being for being outside conjugal bed turning into mutual divorce application under illegal pressure of threats looming large over husband by way of 498A IPC or by any abuse of any women empowerment law.

 19. Thus also whether the divorce application turns into mutual divorce

application or not, the living woman cannot be granted divorce under the HMA even.

20.  Using same offence or allegations of cruelty for prosecution for two fold punishment i.e. u/s. 498A IPC implies that she wants to reside with husband if the alleged cruelty was not there otherwise if she does not intend to reside with husband then there is no cruelty at all, and u/s 13 or 13B of HMA cruelty cannot be used for being “prosecuted” (proceeded) for the same offence more than once i.e. cruelty, for divorce for the same cruelty between same persons being already used through 498A IPC.

21.  Rather, It is the right of the husband to demand divorce from wife for her cruelty by making use of 498A IPC for ulterior motives amongst other reasons as may applicable in each circumstances. Kindly refer to Article 20(2) of the Constitution which reads as follows: “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

21. Empowerment of woman under Indian penal and criminal procedure codes :

The women are not being psychologically trained/prepared to how to truly use the empowerment in fair manner. First they cannot be given such powers that even Indian parliament, Government public servants do not enjoy as un-reigned powers.

22. When a woman is given such empowerment understandingthat they will use it when necessary and not for ulterior motives, then if woman is found to abuse such criminal laws for ulterior motives and purposes, such woman and also her abettors conspiracy are to be punished severely including for taking away Right to Liberty that is guaranteed..

23. The Right of Liberty of husband and his relatives is infringedby police without due process of law because of the wrong implementation of the Crl. Act no.46 of 1983 of which section 2 created 498A IPC. All its sections 2 to 7 cannot be read in isolation as the whole set of “sections” show the benign intention of this intra-vires law.

24. Sec. 498A IPC cannot be considered by itself by isolatingfrom other sections of Crl. Act No. 46 of 1983.25. THE PWDVA & RULES 2006: Unlike Cr. Act No.46 of 1983

which has two alternative criminal procedures in the same coin of 498A IPC, The Prevention of Domestic Violence Against Women Act & Rule 2006 (PAD Act & RULES 2006) said to be effective from 26/10/2006 have different stages of actions on the same side of the coin of PWDVA i.e. Civil , Criminal gradually as per stages in the law.

26. Complaint by woman etc. under the Act can be dismissedeven at any stage. But when this special law of The Prevention of Domestic Violence Against Women Act & Rule 2006 is also used in conjunction with other criminal acts, it will be hell again, and in that condition it will also prove that the perpetrators of the law harping women protection do not find any force in the complaint of woman against family members, and so to justify arrest jump rapidly or directly to arrest and punish the man for one year by adding additional penal laws and Crl. procedures

27. The Union Minister of Human Resources Developmentpresented PADUA as the Civil Law in the Parliament as Bill No. 116 of 2005. Kindly refer to Minister’s Statement of Objectives and Reasons ‘s para 2 and 3 mentioned in Schedule VI

28. PWDVA is a fraud upon the Parliament for obtaining itsapproval as civil law because it is in reality a Criminal law.

29. PWDVA has isolated section 498A IPC also from theCriminal Act No.46 of 1983 for ignoring the intentions of the legislation of 1983 to use the law for ulterior purposes. Other provisions also incorporated in it relating to section 125 Cr.P.c.

and Dowry Prohibition Act to change its application detrimental to the constitutional law already made.

30. Wrong Implementation by police officer and not stopped by magistrate, creates wrong implementation of section 498A IPC:31. When information is made by woman to the police station, the police officer has to register the first Information Report the contents are disclosing cognizable offence, and then set the law into motion for investigation. Registering of F.I.R. on basis of prior inquiry is not permissible. The F.I.R. has to be registered then inquired into it.32. The Bill No. XIVF of 1983 in parliament creating 498A IPC

mentions in its objects as follows in first sentence of the first paragraph: “The increasing number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern.” And “Cases of cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the hapless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty.”

33. For using the cognizable part of the first dowry death law enacted under Crl. Act No. 46 of 1983, the following offences are two categories of offences are covered under section498A IPC: 1. Dowry death/suicide by willful cruelty to living woman within7years. (KINDLY See Section 3 of Crl. Act No. 46/1983). 

2. Second category of offence u/s 498A, being Living woman subjected to willful cruelty / harassment by husband or his relatives.

 34. The police officer is competent civil authority to decide

the application of the special law i.e. 498A IPC to register F.I.R. for the first category of offence of dowry suicide, as cognizable offence like dowry death.

35. Under the special law i.e. 498A IPC, the second categorymentioned in para 160 sub-para B9 above i.e. for willful crueltyallegedly by husband or his relative, it is non-cognizable offence for which the living woman has to make a private complaint to the competent magistrate and the F.I.R. cannot be registered u/s. 154 of the Cr.P.C. .

36. Section 154 of the Code thus casts a statutory duty upon policeofficer to register the case, as disclosed in the complaint, and then to proceed with the investigation. The mandate of Section 154 is manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station, such police officer has no other option except to register the case on the basis of such information.

37.                    The notification referred in Section 1(3) is the notification to be made after the Rules are agreed upon by the Parliament (both houses) under section 37(3) of the Act No.43/2005.

38.                    The impugned notification of is of 17/10/2006 i.e. G.S.R. No.644(E) dated 17/10/2006 does not specifically refer that these rules shall be effective only after being agreed upon by the Parliament under section 37 (3) of the Act and seemingly notifies simultaneously for being effective from 26/10/2006 seemingly without being agreed upon by the Parliament and the also without mentioning that the Rules are being made effective from such date after the Rules have been agreed upon by the Parliament i.e. by the both houses of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The Notification vide S.O. No. 1776(E) dated 17/10/2006 has some element of hidden ulterior motive(s) to rush through an unconstitutional act of making the rules effective without any compliance an reference of the mandatory Section 37(3) of the special law - Prevention of Domestic Violence Against Women Act 2005.

B. Unlike Act No. 46/1983 which has dual criminal procedure as a coin that has head and tail, the Act No.43 of 2005 and its Rules 2006 has multiple mix of civil and criminal procedures on the same side of the coin of Act No.43/2005 and its Rules 2006 for being used one after another theoretically effective from 26/10/2006.

C. In both the plea taken is of miniscule number of offences. The(Civil) Act No. 43 of 2005 doped with criminal law, will surpass manifold the abuse of criminal process for ulterior motives by woman as being done by living woman by abusing the criminal process in violation of the spirit and intention of the Parliament in Crl. Act No. 46 of 1993. The Supreme Court has directed to punish the persons found to abuse criminal process in its judgment of 19/7/2005 reported in 2005 (5) SCC 281. Based upon this judgment, this is applicable in case of abuse of any law (civil or criminal) that the persons may include according to the circumstances in each case civil (includes police officer concerned) and judicial authority including for abetting u/s. 34 and 120 IPC, in such abuse of process of court for ulterior motives of the persons. The possible reasons being as follows as applicable in each circumstances:

(I)                              The civil authority putting a false case for ulterior motives and it attracts also section 389IPC against the person who makes false report to him and the police officer acts in manner as he should not have acted.

(II)                            The judicial Authority if not restraining the persons for filing false cases, and if not dismissing a complaint / civil case with ulterior motives in case of criminal case not honorably acquitting the accused person(s). Trial cannot be made for ulterior motives.

                The Act No. 43 of 2005 ‘s statement reflects the intention of the

Minister as given to the Parliament for passing the Act and was to be effective only after the both Houses of Parliament agreed upon each part of the Rules: Ref. For Act No. 43/2005:

                “ STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its Genera! Recommendation No. XII (1989) has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family.

2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety,

… ARJUN SINGH 12/8/2005

------------------------------- Unquote.

39. The law has ignored SC judges’ made law under the Constitution from time to time: SC realized the ulterior purposes in following judgments for abusing the civil and criminal process by woman:

Mohammad Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum & Anr. SC judgment of 7/1/2005. 2004 AIR SCW 332: ulterior motive of woman.

Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal & Ors. SC judgment on 5/11/2004 (Appeal (crl.) 1274 of 2004)

2005 AIR SCW5303

ASHOK BHAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2501 of 2002 Date: 21/10/05

- Union of India and another v. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan. The importance and Application of Article 141 and 144 of the Constitution in day to day functioning to reduce pressure upon the courts.

2005 AIR SCW 3569  ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H. K. SEMA, JJ.

Judgment Date Date: 19/07/05

2006 AIR SCW 858  ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S. H. KAPADIA, JJ.

Transfer Petn. (C) No. 291 of 2005 Date: 14/02/06

Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar.

40. Crl. Act no. 46 of 1983 was legislated it contains Section 2 to 7 read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the related Bill No. XIV of 1983’s first sentence is “The increasing number of dowry deaths is matter of serious concern.” 3rd. sentence is “Cases of cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the hapless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty.”

41. 41. It be noted that this was the first dowry death law. Section 2 read with Sec. 3 of the above Act no.46/1983 creates section 498A IPC that gives references to dowry death in various forms. The concerned Police officer in case of information by living woman write F.I.R. as a cognizable offence, he is not working in accordance with the law as well as working in contravention of his obligation to work in aid of the Supreme Court of India. If the concerned magistrate does not stop such abuse of criminal or civil process, it does not give licence to police officer to vanish the intention of the Parliament. Such acts attract to challenge the wrongdoer and abettors like the police officer making the complaint of living woman.

42. 42. In order to protect herself the woman can file a complaint to the competent magistrate who depending upon the merits will issue summonses only after being satisfied of the genuineness of the sufferings. And section 498A IPC is bailable in hands of the magistrate in summons case and the home is protected.

43. 44. In case of woman making the state to pay the cost of the wrong implementation of the law, who are the beneficiaries in the Government and found out the mode of benefits they may or they can derive from “allowing” the police officer to create a state case.

44. 45. It is for the alertness of the husband, and his relatives that only can help and to protest and challenge the Police Officer of a Police Station when the police officer abuses his powers to register the crime alleged u/s. 498A IPC by ignoring the intention

of the Parliament in the related 498A IPC’s mother Crl. Act No. 46 of 1983. Then challenge similarly the act of the Judicial Magistrate First Class / Metropolitan Magistrate if he does not direct the police officer to restrain from such extra-constitutional acts of the police officer on information from living woman and creating a cognizable offence in the primary context of violating the section 3 of the Crl. Act no. 46/1983.

45.46. It is earnestly appealed to the Government and the leader of the opposition in Parliament to raise the concern and voice in all forums to protect woman who is being enticed with such unauthorized unseen licenses issued of which the presence is felt when the any statutes are implemented in a manner not consistent with the intention of the law. And in case of the Protection of Domestic Violence Against Women Act AND Rules 2006, it is totally in violation of the resolution of the United Nation’s CEDAW.Our homes need protection from wrongdoer to mankind includes the women.

46.CEDAW resolution speaks of preventing Domestic Violence – it speaks of including women and not speaks of excluding others from the Domestic Violence.

47.25/11/2006 Copyright, PARIWARIK SURAKSHA (regd)

To: The Officer Commanding98 Road Constr. Coy (GREF)Pin-930098,C/O-99 APO

Sir, Most respectfully, as per ordered by you, I have applied for EL-15

day’s wef 03 April 2012 and enclosed one blank signed leave application.

As per seeing my benefit and the rule of temporary duty, if I have availed EL-15 days wef date of departure, I am not getting benefit of return journey travel, So that I have applied for CL-15 days since same date as per above.

Now, in view of above, You are therefore requested kindly consider as per your end please

Thanking you Sir,

Yours faithfully

Dated: 02 April 2012 Gs.172424 F, JE (Civil)Hori Lal

C E R T I F I C A T E

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 RamKh. 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 Cr Amount Debits Dr Amount

Basic Pay 14180 GPFsub/NPS 1139

Grade Pay 4800GPFRefund/Govt

Cont.4500

Dearness Pay 0 ACRs 0

DA 11472 FRMOs 0

TPTA 800 PLI 4360

Pers Pay 0 CGEIS 60

UMA/WA 75 Staff Car 0

NCASHL 9 Loans/Adv. 0

HRA 1898 Income Tax 0

SCRLA3 1500 Edu.Cess 0

SDA 2372 CGHS 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Pay in Bank 14678 0

NPS Govt.Cont. 0 0

Home Back

Contact Us

Particulars of Transparency Officer under RTI Act

Particulars of Appellate Authority under RTI Act 

Particulars of CPIOunder RTI Act

Dr. V K Yadav, VSMAddl DGBR

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

Shri Rohtash Kumar,Joint Director (Admn)

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

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

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

Tele - 011-25686857Fax  - 01125699618e-mail- [email protected]

Tele - 011-25686863Fax  - 011-25684632,                 25696026e-mail- [email protected]

Tele - 011-25686962Fax  - 011-25684632,                 25696026e-mail- [email protected]

1 IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE(WEST) TIS HAZARI : DELHI HMA No.81/2010Sh. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan KumarR/o M-44, Gali No.4,New Mahavir Nagar,New Delhi. ....PetitionerVersusSmt. Priya Bharti SharmaW/o Sh. Amit KumarD/o Sh. Ramesh SharmaR/o 529, Behind New Market,Krishna Gali,Yamunanagar, Haryana....RespondentDate of Institution of petition : 06.03.2010Date of reserving the Judgment: 24.01.2012 Date of passing the Judgment : 28.01.2012JUDGMENT:Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband to seek restitutionof the conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA stating therein that marriage wassolemnized between the parties on 15.03.2009, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies atArya Samaj Mandir, Najafgarh, New Delhi and the parties had entered into marriage outof their own choice and desire. 2. It is further stated that although the marriage was duly consummated butAmit Kumar Vs. Priya Bharti Sharma2there 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 therespondent/wife visited the matrimonial house of the parties and took the respondent

alongwith them to their house at Yamunanagar, Haryana and also taking away thevaluable articles etc. 3. Petitioner alleges that he lodged a complaint with PS Janakpuri in theinterest of the respondent/wife herself as respondent/wife had been taken away by herparents against her wish. Petitioner is also alleged to have made several efforts to bringback the respondent to the matrimonial home but that the respondent verbally refused tojoin the society of the petitioner/husband and also extended threats to him in case hepersisted with his efforts. 4. It is the case of petitioner that the family members and relatives of therespondent that all were extending threats to him and to his family members to implicatethem in a false criminal case relating to dowry demands etc. When all the efforts of thepetitioner and his family members failed to bring back the respondent, petitioner hascome 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 toappear in person but till date in spite of innumerable opportunities, both parties failed toappear even once. It also comes to notice that although the directions had been issuedfor personal appearance, somehow the fact that they had not appeared even once wentunnoticed. 6. It is further noted that matter was referred to Mediation but in the Mediationalso respondent has not appeared. What is more significant is that WS was filed onbehalf of respondent but respondent never appeared even once. It is also seen that afterfiling of the WS, no replication was filed and in fact none even appeared for thepetitioner. None appeared for the petitioner even at the evidence stage to lead theAmit Kumar Vs. Priya Bharti Sharma3evidence and this has remained the position till the last stage. Ultimately, opportunityfor leading evidence was closed. Since the petitioner has failed to prove the allegations leveled by him by nothaving 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)/DELHIAmit Kumar Vs. Priya Bharti Sharma

1HMA No.  08/201110.02.2012Present : None.Application   for   Interim   Maintenance   under   Section   24HMA taken up for disposal.  In this entire application comprising of asmany as 34 paragraphs, unfortunately it  is only one paragraph i.e.para  no. 33 in all, wherein averments have been made relating  tomaintenance, rest  of  all are  only  allegations, relating  to  the  mainpetition   for   divorce,   which   has   been   filed   by   the   nonapplicant/husband.  In   this   application,   the   applicant   wife   claims   that   nonapplicant/husband is a man of means and sources, having immovableproperties, experience in the field of Web designing, and animation asper his resume, he is alleged to be doing his own business as a free

lancer,   as   a   designer   and   animator   with   reputed   advertisementcompanies in India as well as abroad and having a rich experiencewith  foreign  companies.   His  immovable  property  is  alleged  to  beworth about Rs. 1.2 crores. He is also alleged to be a owner of SantroCar  as per  the particulars  given therein and maintaining expensivemobile set of Nokia in an expensive series.   His earning is alleged tobe more than Rs. 2 lakhs per month and besides it is claimed that heis   also   earning   about   Rs.   50,   000/   each   month   from   differentinvestments in shares, FDs, saving schemes of post offices etc.  It isSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh2further the case of the applicant wife that the non applicant/husbandhas no other liabilities apart from the applicant no. 1 and the minorchild  applicant  no. 2,   as  stating  the parents  of  the nonapplicanthusband and his brother are well established and earning handsomeamounts   and   going   thereby,   the   applicant   no.   1/wife   has   soughtmaintenance @ Rs. 80,000/  per  month  for  both  of  the applicantstaken   altogether   besides   the   sum   of   Rs.   70,   000/   as   litigationexpenses. Non   applicant/husband   in   his   reply   has   raised   certainpreliminary objections to the very maintainability of  the applicationstating therein that applicant no. 1/wife is an employed person andbesides 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 underthe 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 hisreply by copy of appointment letter and certificate of assurance of reemployment after the applicant no. 1 returns to India from UK.It is further the stand taken by the nonapplicant/husbandthat   applicant   no.   1/wife   used   to   earn   a   handsome   amount   byproviding her fashion design sketches  to the above said employer ona   work   to   work   basis   apart   from   receiving   a   regular   salary   asSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh3merchandiser.  As such according to the nonapplicant/husband, theapplicant no. 1 wife was able to earn Rs. 30,000/ per month as shecharges @ Rs. 3500/ per sheet of sketch design as she is an expert inmaking these sketches.   It is further elaborated that the proprietor ofthe said firm is friend of the father of applicant no. 1 and being onfamily terms regularly visits their house as well and keeps presentingcostly gifts to both applicants to the extent of  gifting gold items aswell i.e. gold earing etc.  It is alleged that he has been always a part ofthe family in all the functions. The   nonapplicant/husband   also   referred   to   certainconversation between the applicant no. 1 wife and said Mr. DavinderSingh, employer,   while applicant no. 1 was in the UK and from somany   conversations   it   reveals   as   if   the   said   Mr.   Davinder   Singhconceded  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 ofSh. 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 thatexports  were temporarily affected due to recession as in 2007 andthat he was not been able to hire any expert since applicant no. 1 hadleft  in the year, 2006 and therefore, he required  some fresh  ideasfrom applicant no. 1 for the spring/summer fashion collection to beSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh4exported to Mexico and North America.  Non applicant/husband hasalleged that applicant no. 1 then prepared the fashion sketches fromUK for Mr. Davinder Singh and emailed same to him on his aboveemail ID.  Further alleged that said Mr. Davinder Singh exported hisfashion garments on the basis of the sketches at his brother's importfirm   namely   M/s.   Priya  ConceptoIndu  at   the   Mexican   address   asstated therein.  The said Mr. Davinder Singh is also alleged to haveexported  the  dresses  to  some  other  exporters  in  North  as  well asSouth America as well as in Europe and as such, applicant no. 1 isearning  a  minimum of  Rs. 30,000/  per  month, since 3rd  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 parentswhereas she herself  has also been alloted a plot  of  land measuringabout 60 sqr. yds. in Rohini area of Delhi. It  is also the case of  the non applicant/husband that  healways   wished   that   both   the   applicants   live   with   him   in   thematrimonial home but applicant no. 1 in connivance with her parentsand brother insisted upon living in a nuclear family and never residedin   joint   family   of   the   non   applicant/husband   parents   i.e.   at   theMatrimonial Home at Patparganj Society, Delhi. It is also his plea thatparents of applicant no. 1 are interested in earnings of applicant no.1, as such, they never wanted to loosen their grip on applicant no. 1Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh5and her earnings. However,   non   applicant/husband   also   states   that   he   isready   to   share   with   the   applicant   no.   1,   the   actual   expenses   ofapplicant no. 2 i.e. schooling fee subject to visiting rights to him andinteract with minor daughter.  As   regards   the   allegations   of   the   applicant   regardingincome of non applicant/husband, he has vehmently denied the same,also the non applicant/husband has denied being the owner of  anyimmovable  property  worth  Rs. 2  crores  and  even  a  Santro  Car  asalleged. He has denied business earnings being Rs. 2 lakhs per month.As regards the Nokia N series mobile set, non applicant/husband hassubmitted  that  it  was  provided  free  of  cost  by  the  Mobile  serviceprovider company about more than 3 years ago as per their standardpractice  to  provide  free  of  cost  mobile  handsets  when  a  customersigns  to  the  monthly  prepaid  talktime  tariff  scheme  for  the  newtariffplan  mobile  services. In  fact, the  non  applicant/husband  hasalleged that even applicant no. 1 too was given the similar mobile inthe 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   hisparents  ever  since   his   arrival   from  UK,  i.e.   Flat   No.  301,   NavnitiSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh6Cooperative   Society,   Plot   No.   51,   I.P.   Extension,   Patparganj,   NewDelhi and that the above said group housing flat was alloted to thefather  of  the non applicant/husband in 1995 i.e. after  16 years  ofenrollment as a member in the said society and that the said flat isexclusively a self acquired property by his father who has worked veryhard as a practicing lawyer since, 1975 till date and all that he couldbuild for himself and his family was the above residence wherein nonapplicant/husband   has   no   ownership   right   at   all.   However,   thatthough non applicant/husband is free to use the said property but heis not entitled to claim any right whatsoever therein.Non   applicant/husband   has   also   added   lengthyexplanations in his reply that he is not living any luxurious life as hasbeen alleged by applicant no. 1 and that he has not owned any car,however   the   non   applicant/husband   drives   an   old   car   modelpertaining to the year 2001,  the particulars of which have also beenfurnished, as  being  a  Hyundai Santro  bearing  no. DL  7  CA 9980,which also is owned by his father and had been purchased as a secondhand  car  from  a  used/second  hand  car  market  of  East  Delhi andwhose first  owner also was a resident  of  I.P. Extension, Patparganjarea.Non   applicant/husband   has   also   raised   the   points   thatapplicant  no. 1 has not  furnished any particulars  of  the companiesand the sources from where she alleges that he is earning Rs. 2 lakhsSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh7or   more   in   India   or   abroad   and   according   to   the   nonapplicant/husband  she  is  not  able  to  furnish  any  particulars  sincethese are only false allegations.Non applicant/husband has further set out to explain andclarify   that   he   has   only   a   single   source   of   income   which   too   isvariable,   temporary,   short   term   and   his   monthly   income   dependsupon the number of days and the hours of lecture per visit as per thetime   table   furnished   by   the   employer   and   that   too   is   absolutelytemporary in nature and may be discontinued at any point of time asnon applicant/husband is a member of temporary visiting faculty staffof Global School of Animation and Gaming.Besides non applicant/husband has also come up with acase that he has several other legal binding liabilities towards SBI torepay his education loan by way of monthly installments and whichon  account   of  escalation   in   the  interest   rates  have   gone   up.  Nonapplicant/husband has also furnished the particulars  and details  ofthe said loan in part 'G' of his reply.However, non applicant/husband also claims that he hasnever   refused   and   neglected   to   maintain   his   wife   and   the   minordaughter.  In fact, the non applicant/husband has also referred to theearlier meetings between the parties and family members which hadalso  resulted  almost  in  reuniting  the parties  to  continue with  thematrimonial   life   and   according   to   non   applicant/husband   it   isSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh8

applicant no. 1 herself who has voluntarily chosen to live separatelyalongwith minor daughter at her parents house against the consentand wishes of the non applicant/husband.  It   is   also   his   stand   that   applicant   no.   1   has   sufficientmeans  to  maintain  herself  on  account  of  her  special qualificationsreferred above. According   to   non   applicant/husband,   applicant   no.   1should not take benefit of her own wrongs and causing great mentaland   financial   strain   on   the   non   applicant/husband.   Nonapplicant/husband has further elaborated about  his employments atdifferent periods of  time, quite clearly in as much as he states thatafter finishing his study in July, 2007, had got a job as a lecturer inGames   Development(0.5   parttime),   which   was   a   part   time   inBradford College in UK on 27.08.2007 and he used to transfer  UKPounds into the Bank account of respondent applicant in India, whichaccount   number   has   also   been   disclosed   as   being   at   ICICI   Bank,Branch situated at BBlock, Janakpuri, New Delhi, where her fatherwho used to withdraw the amounts out of the said transferred moneyin Indian currency being the special attorney of applicant no. 1 andthe total amount of money was transferred through ICICINet Expressmode   comes   to   be   about   £   2200   sent   by   non   applicant/husbandduring period  from December, 2007 to June, 2009, which were beingsent for the schooling and other miscellaneous expenses of the minorSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh9daughter during her stay in house of the mother of the applicant no. 1i.e.   at   Ganesh   Nagar,   Near   Tilak   Nagar.   Copies   of   the   transfertransactions details are filed on record.  Apart   from   the   above   stated   amount   of   money   sotransferred   by   the   non   applicant/husband   into   the   account   ofapplicant  no. 1 in the ICICI  Bank Ltd. (India)  for  the welfare andeducation of the minor daughter, the applicant no. 1 herself also sentabout  £500.00 GBP to her  father, while she was  in UK. The bankstatements and the passbook of  applicant's no. 1 of  the ICICI  BankLtd. (Janakpuri Branch, New Delhi, India) for the above said period isin the exclusive possession and custody of the applicant no. 1 and herparents.  The said ICICI Bank account of the applicant no. 1 was gotopened at the introduction of aforesaid family friend and employer ofapplicant no. 1 Shri Davinder Singh in the year August, 2005 onwardsi.e. when the applicant no. 1 started working for the aforesaid exportfirm M/s. Bright Mak Traders and that hence  from the above facts itis clearly evident that the non applicant/husband never neglected andrefused to maintain the applicants no. 1 and no. 2 as alleged by theapplicant no. 1 herein. The   non   applicant/husband   further   narrates   that   hefacilitated the applicant no. 1 on the first available opportunity to joinhim in the UK as explained in the last paragraph number 33 aboveSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh10and  also  while  in  the  UK applicant  no. 1  was  given  facilities  andopportunities to make herself ready to be part of the U.K.  communityliving and to include herself in the workforce of employment of theUK which task was difficult, as entering into UK job market without

the formal UK education and also without the fluency in speaking andunderstanding of British English accent.  It is further submitted that inorder to achieve the above goal, the non applicant/husband providedall his experience and guidance to the applicant no. 1 so that she mayget the reasonable opportunity to enter into the competitive U.K. jobmarket   and   also   became   part   of   the   British   society.     The   nonapplicant/husband   in   order   to   make   available   the   above   saidopportunity to the applicant no. 1, facilitated her to attend the QEDUK (Moto:  Turning Challenges to Opportunities”) classes sponsoredjointly  by  the  UK  Government  and  the  E.U. Commission  at  QuestHouse, 243 Manningham Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BDB 7ER,UK.  The said institution provided training to the applicant no. 1 fromFebruary   2007   to   May   2007   in   the   fields   of:   a)   British   Englishbusiness   conversation   and   English   Knowledge   of   workplace,   b)Employment Oriented Skills, C) Basic IT Skills, d) Awareness aboutthe rights of a women at workplace and in the society at large.Thereafter   the   non   applicant/husband   helped   theapplicant no. 1 in getting her the National Insurance Number which iscompulsory to join any kind of job in the United Kingdom.  And whenSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh11the applicant no. 1 got the National Insurance Number (SH 29 67 41B) which was alloted in month of April/May 2007 and thereafter onlythe applicant no. 1 was offered her first employment opportunity towork as a temporary worker/wage earner for about 10 to 12 hrs perweek on parttime basis at  the rate of  £5.95 GBP per hour  for  theduration of one month in June, 2007 at ASDAGeorge DepartmentalStore in Reading, Berkshire, U.K. Thereafter the applicant no. 1 gotother job opportunities intermittently as temporary worker employedon parttime bases in the following order shown below with details ofperiod of employment, monthly wages and net wages after deductionof  mandatory taxes on wages including  the National Insurance (NIdeductions).     Details   of   applicant   no.   1's   total   employments   andincome during the applicant no. 1's stay in the U.K. (from 27th Oct.,2006   to   23rd  Nov.,   2009)   in   various   retail   departmentalstores/showrooms etc and also her expenditures are given as under inthe tabular form:Table of Total Earning through WagesS. NO. Name   oftheEmployerType   ofJobDuration   ofthe JobMonthlyWagesTotal

WagesforperiodofEmploymentTaxDeducted   onTotalWages&   NIDeductNetAmountreceived.Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh12Table of Total Earning through Wages1ASDGeorge,ReadingTemporary   ParttimeworkerLessthanonemonth,June,07£312.00 £312.00£22.00NIDeduction=NIL£290.002BombayStores,BradfordTemporary   ParttimeworkerLessthanonemonth

27thAugust,07   to16thSept.2007£682.13 £682.13£42.93NIDeduction=NIL£639.23T.   J.Hughes,BradfordPermanent   Parttimeworker. 8monthsSep   07toApril,2008£429.76 £3438.10£108.71NIDeduction=£31£3329.394MorrisonsBradfordPermanentFull   timeworker10monthsOct. 09to July,10£723.80 £7238.37

£642.80NIdeduct=£151.00£6595.57Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh13Table of Total Earning through WagesTotalEquationFouremployers   during3 years ofstay   inthe UKThreepart   timejobs   andonly   onefull   timejob10monthsof   parttimejobsand   10monthsof   fulltimejob   outofthreeyearsof   stayin   theUK£10584.16   totalnetamountreceivedduringthreeyears   ofstay   inthe UKThe   non   applicant/husband   completed   Bsc.(HOns.)   inAnimations and Special Effects in July 2007 from the University of

Bradford, UK and thereafter he was employed as parttime lecturer inBradford College on 0.5 grade and the non applicant/husband later inMay,   2008   also   started   teaching   few   extra   hours   as   a   temporaryvisiting lecturer in Shipley College, West Yorkshire, UK on 0.25 grade.Thereafter on the expiration of non applicant/husband's Tier 1 (PostStudy Worker Visa), the non applicant/husband alongwith applicantno. 1  came  to  Delhi on  24th  November, 2009  and  since  then  nonapplicant/husband has been trying to get  a suitable job as per nonapplicant/husband's   qualification   and   experience   for   which   nonSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh14applicant/husband   has   applied   online   to   many   educationalinstitutions  and  animation  firms  at  Delhi,  NCR  region  but  to  nonapplicant/husband's hard luck the non applicant/husband could notget any job however after eight months of  unemployment since thedate   the   non   applicant/husband   came   back   from   UK,   the   nonapplicant/husband now got a temporary appointment on 6th August,2010  for  a  limited  period  of  time on  parttime  basis  as  a  VisitingFaculty for  Gaming, taking 1 hour session per visit  of  lecturing forthree days in a week i.e. on Monday, Wednesday and Friday as perthe time table for limited period of months.  The   non   applicant/husband   claims   to   be   under   greatfinancial   stress   and   liability   at   the   moment   because   he   is   legallybound to repay his educational loan of Rs. 15 lacs advanced to him bythe State Bank of India, Daryaganj Branch, New Delhi110002 in theyear   2003   which   accumulated   to   Rs.   22   lacs   on   account   of   theaddition   of   interest   up   to   the   year   of   successfully   passing   andattaining the honours degree of  BSc. Animation and Special Effectsfrom   the   University   of   Bradford,   UK   and   since   then   the   nonapplicant/husband  being  legally bound  to  repay the aforesaid  loanand in fact  started repaying the same in regular installments at therate of  about  Rs. 30,000 per  month and since then these monthlyinstallments  at  the rate of  about  Rs. 30,000/  are  being  repaid  inregular instalments and sometimes in bulk as per the requirement ofSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh15the   bank   and   as   per   the   necessitating   circumstances   in   order   tostreamline the rate of  floating interest  of  the said bank so that  therepayment of the loan amount comes within the grip of the financesof  the non applicant/husband. Ity is not  out  of  context  to mentionhere that in case even one monthly installment is not repaid and ifmissed   as   such   then   the   rate   of   interest   becomes   compound   andmonthly installment  rate thus  would  be escalated.   At  present  theamount 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   nonapplicant/husband. The petitioner husband/non applicant further pleads thatthe applicant no. 1 thus has sufficient independent source of incometo maintain herself and also the minor child and the applicant no. 1 isalso   able   to   support   the   necessary   expenses   of   the   proceedings

pending before this Hon'ble Court. In fact the applicant no. 1 has beenmisusing  the statutory provisions  of  Section  24 HMA which  is  notmeant for women having sufficient means and an independent sourceof  income but  the same has been enacted by parliament  for  reallyneedy and destitute spouses. It is submitted that the non applicant/husband has givendetails  about  his  loss  of  job  after  expiration of  visa, details  of  thestruggles   of   finding   a   job  in   India   after  coming  from  UK   on   24thNovember,   2009   and   also   the   pains   and   cruelty   inflicted   by   theSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh16applicant no. 1 on the non applicant/husband after coming to Indiafrom UK, which caused disturbance and turbulence not  only in thematrimonial life  but  also  in  normal day  to  day  living  of  the  nonapplicant/husband   which   has   caused   a   great   mental   agony   anddeprivation   that   took   a   toll   on   his   health   and   his   social   andprofessional life and also has caused a great financial setback to thenon 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 thepresent   divorce   petition,   rushed   to   file   a   false   and   frivolouscomplaints   against   the   non   applicant/husband   and   his   familymembers  in   connivance   with   her   parents   and   relatives   before  theCrime Against Women CellNanakpura New Delhi on 16th June, 2010as a counterblast to the said divorce petition and thereby misusingthe   provisions   relating   to   dowry,   harassments   etc.   The   nonapplicant/husband  and  his  parents  have  been  put  to  great  mentalagony due to the false lodging of above said complaint in the CAWCellNanakpura, and the non applicant/husband and his  father  areregularly attending the various dates of hearing in the said CAW Cellon the basis of false and concocted allegations levelled after a periodof about nine years of the marriage between the parties. Thus   the   non   applicant/husband   and   his   parents   havebeen harassed and victimised by the applicant  no. 1 in connivancewith her parents and brother on false accusations and therefore theSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh17day to day living of the non applicant/husband and his parents hasbeen   adversely   affected   due   to   the   above   retaliatory   acts   andbehaviour of the applicant no. 1. Non   applicant/husband   has   prayed   for   dismissal   of   theapplication with exemplary costs. In   the   Rejoinder   filed   by   the   applicant   no.   1/wife,   she   hasdenied the allegations levelled by the non applicant/husband and hasreiterated her own version as correct.   She has denied having everearn a handsome amount by providing fashion designing sketches toMr. Davinder Singh alleged employer on work to work basis and alsothat 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 herfather and in his own family terms, and also that he used to presentcostly   gifts   to   applicants   including   gold   items.     However   she   hasstrongly denied that she was ever paid even a single penny for her

assistance   given   to  Sh.  Davinder  Sharma   neither   any  payment   onwork to work basis nor any salary.   Applicant  wife has also deniedhaving been alloted a plot of land measuring 60 Sqr. Yrds. in Rohini.Argument Heard addressed at length spread over various datesas the matter has been hotly pursued/contested by both parties.  Outof the document filed by non applicant/husband were few documentsrelating to the website of the company  M/s. Bright Mak Export Pvt.Ltd.,  which are extract  from its  website and show the name of  itsSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh18director as Mr. Davinder Singh however as the applicant no. 1 hadalready not  disputed her  having  worked for  the said Mr. DavinderSingh for his company and a fact which has already been not disputedneeds no further proof on that.  Applicant  no. 1 has taken the stand is that  she was notbeing paid any remuneration or fee for her sketches either as salary oras  work  to  work  basis.   In fact, as  per  the applicant  no. 1 in herapplication for interim maintenance herself she has herself given thedetails of  her  qualifications and her  having worked in the UK. Hercapability   to   earn   well   is   made   out   from   the   contents   of   theapplication itself i.e. para 19 thereof wherein the applicant no. 1 hasstated  that  while  in  UK  she  has  worked  there  for  3  years  earned“thousands of  pounds(UK)” and that although same were depositedinto the account of non applicant/husband, since whether they weredeposited   in   her   own   account   or   in   the   account   of   nonapplicant/husband, would  be a matter  of  merits  to be treated anddecided only by way of detailed evidence, the only thing that comesclear is that applicant no. 1 is more than self sufficient to earn a goodincome for herself and to maintain her standard of living.It is further stated in the said part that applicant no. 1 hasworked  in  various  organization  in  UK  and  had  earned  “handsomesalary” which were taken by non applicant/husband and deposited inhis   account.     As   already   observed   above,   where   the   money   wasSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh19deposited would only be a question of detailed evidence to be lead atthe appropriate stage and for the purpose of  interim compensation,the capacity of  spouse to earn a living is  what  is  relevant  and theapplicant no. 1  own stand that she earn a handsome salary, needs nofurther discussion on the point that applicant no. 1 is well capable ofearning   for   herself.   As   regards   where   the   money   earned   by   nonapplicant/husband or by applicant while in UK were deposited and bywhom   they   were   withdrawn   are   absolutely   not   relevant   to   thequestion of interim maintenance whether the court is only concernedto find out about the capacity of spouse to earn for themselves and tomaintain themselves as per their standard of living which they havebeen   used   to,   their   other   liabilities   besides   the   spouse   claimingmaintenance, if any, and not as to where the money that they earnedin the past were deposited.It is quite unfortunate that applicant no. 1 has burdenedthis court with extremely lengthy and voluminous application, most ofwhich   is   only   repetition   of   the   averments   made   in   the   WrittenStatement  to the main petition for  divorce and are matters only ofmerit   to   be   prove   by   way   of   evidence   at   the   appropriate   stage.

Hardly, one para is related to the point of maintenance and even thenon applicant/husband has drifted away from the main aspect  andgone into the question of where the saving were deposited earlier inthe past and by whom they were withdrawn. Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh20It is observed that this like pleadings cause much delay indisposal of the present application, wherein, the court has literally todig up the averments on the point of maintenance and could find afew only in one or two paras while rest of the entire application hasbeen devoted to level allegations against the non applicant/husbandon merits, which has already been stated earlier in Written Statementand were not at all required and have resulted in causing unnecessarydelay to the application itself.Respondent/applicant has relied on extract  from websiteto show the details of the properties owned by Petitioner. While firstdocument relates to the property of Patparganj which the petitionerhimself has not denied too, which according to him is owned by hisfather and not by him. However, the second page of the extract fromwebsite   shows  the  name   of   Petitioner   non  applicant   as   being  thedirect   owner.   However   the   document   shown   to   be   extract   fromWikimapia search shows that the petitioner non applicant also owns aluxury apartment in the Housing complex located in the outskirts ofDelhi at Asola Extension, New Delhi. However the document of list ofowners and the particulars of the apartment shows the father of thepetitioner non applicant i.e. Sh. S. P. Singh to be the owner/allotee ofHouse no. 34, in the said housing complex.  Besides the respondenthas   also   given   the   particulars   of   various   bank   accounts   of   thepetitioner, besides furnishing the details of the various jobs held bySandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh21petitioner alongwith duration, salary and the total salary paid.  Thepetitioner non applicant has shown to have earned about 27,600 UKPounds, which would converted to Rupees comes to Rs. 23,46,000/.Besides, the various resumes of  the petitioner alleged tohave been submitted by him to the different companies are shown tobe describing the petitioner as a self employed professional/contractorand with an hourly rate of 12 UK Pounds. From  various  other  documents  and  record  it  transpiresthat petitioner non applicant is involved into several engagements likework   as   a   visiting   lecturer   in   various   colleges,   animation   schoolscharging fees for lectures per hour, he is into developing and hostingwebsites for various brands and companies.  Petitioner non applicantalso   shown   to   involve   in   making   of   cinematic   movies   and   gamesdevelopment, running his own animation channel on Youtube having824  subscribers  till date  and  also  giving  advertisement  on  variouswebsites with his work details. The detailed resumes of  the petitioner non applicant  nodoubt  render  him a highly qualified & specialized professional intothe field of animation with knowledge of his cinematic camera works.He   is   a   graduate   in   Science   and   also   specialized   in   ComputerAnimation and Special Effects from University of Bradford, UK. Thevoluminous extract from the website brought on record, prima facie,established the petitioner  to be quite capable of  earning handsome

Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh22income  for  himself  from  business  of  making  animation  films,  andfrom all the above mentioned fields. At   the   same   time   the   various   documents   filed   by   thepetitioner non applicant also highlight that respondent wife/applicantis also equally if not more qualified than the petitioner non applicant.She   is   a   qualified   fashion   designer   cum   merchandiser.     She   isevidently capable of having sufficient income for her support and alsolitigation expenses.  The experience certificate and appointment letterof 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 thatfrom the emails extracts placed on record, it is prima facie made outthat her then employer Mr. Davinder Singh, the family friend had alsoassured the applicant/respondentwife to put her back on the job aftershe returns  from UK. The voluminous  document  filed on behalf  ofpetitioner non applicant  also do show clearly that  applicant  wife isalso highly qualified and specialized in the field of Fashion Designing.The   petitioner   non   applicant   has   relied   upon   various   fashiondesigning   sketches   and   also   the   certificate   issued   by   her   thenemployer Mr. Davinder Singh, the family friend and who is proprietorof M/s. Bright Mak Traders. Moreover, the fact of respondent application having beenwell placed and having earned a good income of her own while in UKhas not even been disputed and on the contrary it is she herself whoSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh23has   claimed   that   she   had   earned   substantial   amount   of   moneyalthough the same was deposited in the account of the petitioner nonapplicant. While deciding the application for interim maintenance, itis   not   relevant   as   to   where   the   previous   income   of   therespondent/applicant was deposited as that would only be matter ofevidence.   The court  is only concerned with the present  sources ofincome of the parties, their liabilities apart from the spouse claimingmaintenance in the present case, it is crystal clear that both partiesare from very well settled families, highly well placed, belonging tothe higher status of society, with the respondent applicant being wellcapable not only to maintain herself but to enjoy a luxurious life style.Ld. counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of ourown   Hon'ble   High   Court   in   Sanjay   Bhardwaj   Vs.   State   cited   as2010(5)CRJ  446(DEL). Although  the petition  filed  was  against  theorder   passed   under   the   provision   of   Protection   of   Women   fromDomestic Violation Act, 2005, it was held by his Lordship that the Actdoes   not   create   any   additional   right   in   favour   of   Wife   regardingmaintenance   and   that   it   only   enable   the   Magistrate   to   pass   themaintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws.  Itwas then held that no law provides that a husband has to maintain hiswife living separately from him, in spite of the fact whether he earnsor not, court cannot tell the husband he should beg, borrow or steal,Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh24but  give maintenance to the wife. More so when the husband andwife   are   almost   equally   qualified   and   almost   equally   capable   ofearning  and  both  of  them claim to  have  been  gainfully  employed

before  marriage. It  was  further  held  that  an  unemployed  husbandwho is holding an MBA degree cannot  be treated differently to anunemployed wife who is also holding an MBA degree. Since, both areon equal footing, one cannot be asked to maintain the other, unlessone   is   employed   and   other   is   not.   Order   of   maintenance   in   thatparticular case was as such set aside by the Hon'ble High Court.In the present  case, the email containing attachment  ofprofessional fashion  sketches  created  by  respondent  applicant  wifeemailed   from  U.K.     to   M/s.   Bright   Mak  Traders   on   page   39  andFashion  design  sketches  created  by  respondentwife/applicant  dulysigned   by   her   from  page  40   onwards   to   50,  altogether  point   outtowards  the capability of  the respondent  applicant  to  earn  a  goodincome for herself to maintain the good standard in life and in factthe entire contents of the detailed affidavit  filed by the respondentwife/applicant  in terms of  order of  Hon'ble High Court passed inPuneet Kaur Vs. Inderjeet Sing Sawhney in CM NO. 79/2011 showthat  the respondent  applicant  is rather  from a better  placed  familythan that of the petitioner and in fact belongs to the class i.e. called'elite'. On the other hand the petitioner, non applicant has placedSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh25on record a car receipt for purchase of a used 9 year old Santro Car inthe   name   of   his   father   and   also   the   documents   showing   thatpetitioner/non applicant had obtained education loan from SBI for hishigher studies in UK and he is legally bound to repay the said loan,putting the petitioner in a weaker situation than the respondent in thepresent case. It  was  the contention  of  Ld. counsel for  petitioner  nonapplicant    during arguments that  if  the respondent  applicant  chosenot   to   work   inspite   of   the   qualifications   degrees   and   particularsavailable at  her, she cannot  become a burden on the husband whohimself  is  looking  for  different  assignments  all  the  time.   Besidespresently   the   husband   is   not   able   to   look   for   jobs/assignmentsproperly and even in case he lands up with some assignments, he isnot able to attend the same properly because of as many as 6 criminalcases   already   having   being   filed   against   him   by   the   respondentapplicant.  Besides it was also pointed out that respondent applicanthas not come to court with clean hands as she has tried to conceal hersources of income and in fact when she was directed to file relevantpages of pass book she avoided the same and instead filed only onepage i.e. page no. 4. On   the   other   hand,   the   contentions   of   Ld.   counsel  forrespondent applicant was only that all in the family of petitioner nonapplicant are lawyers and secondly in general husbands do not shareSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh26whole information with their wives in India and thirdly that petitionernon applicant wants to enter into a second marriage. The third contention is relating to the merits of the caseand is not relating to the question of  maintenance. In so far as thefirst   contention   that   all   in   the   family   of   petitioner   are   lawyers,Petitioner has not concealed that his father is a lawyer but that cannotbecome a disqualification for the petitioner in so far as the question of

interim maintenance is concerned. As regards the second contentionthat  husbands  do  not  share whole information with  their  wives  inIndia, this does not seem to be the case in the present case where therespondent applicant and the petitioner non applicant are from veryenlightened  families, well aware of  their  rights  and  petitioner  nonapplicant  has come out  quite honestly about  his sources of  incomeand 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   themaintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act:  4.Right to maintenance is an incident ofthe  status from estate  of  matrimony.Interim maintenance  has  an  elementof   alimony,   which   expression,   in   itsstrict  sense  means  allowance  due  towife  from husband  on  separation. Ithas   its   basis   in   social   conditions   inUnited   Kingdoms   under   which   amarried   woman   was   economicallySandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh27dependent and almost in a position oftutelage   to   the   husband   and   wasintended to secure justice to her.5. Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act goesa step further in as much as it permitsmaintenance   to   be   claimed   by   thehusband even against the wife.6.While considering a claim for interimmaintenance, the court has to keep inmind   the   status   of   the   parties,reasonable wants of the applicant, theincome   and   property   the   theapplicant. Conversely, requirements ofthe   non   applicant,   the   income   andproperty   of   the   non   applicant   andadditionally the other family membersto be maintained by the non applicanthave to be taken into all.  Whilst it isimportant   to   ensure   that   themaintenance awarded to the applicantis sufficient to enable the applicant tolive in somewhat  the same degree ofcomfort  as in the matrimonial  home,but it should not be so exorbitant thatthe non applicant is unable to pay.7.Maintenance   awarded   cannot   bepunitive.   It should aid the applicantto live in a similar life style not exposethe non applicant to unjust contemptor other coercive proceedings. On theother  hand, maintenance  should  notbe  so   low  so   as   to   make   the   order

meaningless.   8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do notSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh28truthfully reveal their income. For selfemployed person or persons employedin   the   unorganized   sector,   truthfulincome never surfaces. Tax avoidanceis   the   norm.   Tax   compliance   is   theexception  in  this  country.  Therefore,in  determining   interim  maintenance,there   cannot   be   mathematicalexactitude.   The   court   has   to   take   ageneral   view.     From   the   variousjudicial   precedents,   the   under   noted11 factors can be culled out, which areto  be  taken  into  consideration  whiledeciding   an   applicant   under   Section24 of Hindu Marriage Act.  The sameare:  1. Status of the parties.2.Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The   independent   income   andproperty of the claimant. 4.The   number   of   persons,   the   nonapplicant has to maintain. 5.The   amount   should   aid   theapplicant   to   live   in   a   similar   lifestyle   as   he/she   enjoyed   in   thematrimonial home. 6. Nonapplicant's liabilities, if any. 7.Provisions   for   food,   clothing,shelther,   education,   medicalattendance and treatment etc. of theapplicant. 8.Payment   capacity   of   the   nonapplicant. 9. Some  guess  work  is  not  ruled  outSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh29while estimating the income of  thenon applicant  when all  the sourcesor correct are not disclosed. 10.The   non   applicant   to   defray   thecost of litigation. 11.The   amount   awarded   underSection   125   Cr.PC   is   adjustableagainst  the amount  awarded underSection 24 of Act.    In Jayant Bhargava V. Priya Bhargava,181   (2011)   DLT   602,  this   court   laid   down   thefactors   to   be   taken   into   consideration   forascertaining the income of the spouse. The relevantportion of judgment is         reproduced hereunder:

“12. It is settled position of law thata wife is entitled to live in a similarstatus as was enjoyed by her in hermatrimonial home. It is the duty ofthe courts to ensure that  it  shouldnot be a case that one spouse livesin a life of comfort and luxury whilethe   other   spouse   lives   a   life   ofdeprivation,   poverty.   During   thependency   of   divorce   proceedingsthe   parties   should   be   able   tomaintain themselves and should besufficiently   entitled   to   therepresented in judicial proceedings.It in case the party is unable to doso   on   account   of   insufficientSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh30income,  the  other  spouse  shall  beliable  to pay the same. (See JasbirKaur 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  inthe  case  of  Bharat  Hegde  v. SarojHedge, reported at 140 (2007) DLT16 has culled out 11 factors, whichcan be taken into consideration fordeciding   the   application   underSection 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Further  it  has  been noticed bythe Courts that the tendency of thespouses   in   proceedings   formaintenance   is   to   not   truthfullydisclose   their   true   income.However, in such cases some guesswork   on   the   part   of   Court   ispermissible.  15. The Supreme Court  of  India inthe   case   of   Jasbir   Kaur   (Smt)(supra), has also recognized the factthat  spouses n the  proceedings formaintenance   do   not   truthfullydisclose   their   true   income   andtherefor   some   guess   work   on   thepart   of   the   Court   is   permissible.Further the Supreme Court has alsoobserved   that   “considering   thediverse  claim  made  by  the  partiesone   inflating   the   income   and   theSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh31

other   suppressing   an   element   ofconjecture   and   guess   work   doesenter for arriving at  the income ofthe husband. It  cannot  be done byany mathematical precision”.  16.   Although   there   cannot   be   anexhaustive list of factors, which areto   be   considered   in   guessing   theincome of the spouses, but the orderbased   on   guess   work   cannot   bearbitrary,   whimsical   or   fanciful.While   guessing   the   income   areeither not disclosed or not correctlydisclosed,  the  Court  can   take  intoconsideration   amongst   others   thefollowing factors: (i) Life style of the spouse; (ii) The amount spent at the time ofmarriage and the manner in whichmarriage was performed; (iii) Destination of honeymoon; (iv) Ownership of motor vehicles; (v) Household facilities; (vi)   Facility   of   driver,   cook   andother help; (vii) Credit Cards; (viii) Bank Account details; (ix) Club membership; (x)  Amount  of  Insurance  Premiumpaid;(xi)   Property   or   propertiespurchased; (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 orchildren are  studying when partieswere residing together;  (xix)   Amount   spent   on   fees   andother expenses incurred; (xx)   Amount   spent   on   extracurricular   activities   of   childrenwhen   parties   were   residingtogether;  (xxi) Capacity to repay loan. Case   law   considering   the   legal   position   w.r.t.   theprinciples  and  guidelines  laid  down  in  the  various  above  referred

decisions  by our  own  Hon'ble  High  Court  and  also  of  the Hon'bleSupreme Court, keeping in view of the entire facts and circumstancesas brought out, taking the prima facie view, the respondent applicanthas not made out any case for her entitlement to interim maintenancefrom   the   petitioner   non   applicant.     As   regards   minor   child,   theburden, must be shared equally between both the parents i.e.  partiesto the petition.   Going by the standard of the parties, their familiesand their status in the society, taking into the view of the surroundingfactors, the sum of Rs. 20,000/ per month would be sufficient for thewelfare   of   the   child   including   education,   the   said   amount   of   Rs.20,000/ per month would equally be shared by both parties to theSandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh33extent  of  50%. As  such  non applicant  petitioner  is  directed to payinterim   maintenance   to   the   minor   daughter   i.e.   Sanaya   @   Rs.10,000/ per month with the remaining Rs. 10,000/ to be borne bythe respondent applicant herself w.e.f. date of filing of the applicationi.e. 09.08.2010. The application is disposed off accordingly. To come up for payment of arrears to applicant no. 2through   her   guardian   applicant   no.   1   and   also   foradmission/denial of documents, if any, and issues on 25.04.2012. (Sujata Kohli)               ADJ (West)/Delhi/10.02.12p.Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh34Sandesh Singh VS. Ashima Singh

1 IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE(WEST) TIS HAZARI : DELHI HMA No.509/2011Sh. Harvinder SinghS/o Sh. Ujagar SinghR/o I-21, Street No.35,Mahendra Park, Azadpur,Delhi. ....PetitionerVersusSmt. Harjeet KaurW/o Sh. Harvinder SinghD/o Sh. Sahib Nagpal,Presently residing at:WZ-519, Street No.27,Shiv Nagar, New Delhi....RespondentDate of Institution of petition : 13.09.2011Date of reserving the Judgment: 02.02.2012 Date of passing the Judgment : 03.02.2012JUDGMENT 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/HinduRites and Ceremonies at Delhi on 06.03.2005 and that they lived together as husbandand wife at Delhi. There is no child from the wedlock.2. It is further alleged that prior to this marriage petitioner had already beenmarried ones and two children from the first marriage namely Isheeta Kaur aged aboutHarvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur217 years (daughter) and Ramneek Singh (son) were born out. Similarly, the respondentwas also already married ones and was having a daughter from her first marriage agedabout 14 years namely Smriti @ Riti. The marriage between the parties was simple andboth the parties live together with the three children peacefully and happily. However,after sometime of the marriage, differences developed on various grounds as alleged andultimately led to the parting of the ways by the respondent from the petitioner, whichcompelled 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 reconciliationbetween the parties. 4. The matter was amicably settled between the parties as per the statementsalso recorded separately. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlementcontaining the detailed terms and conditions as under:-a. It has been mutually agreed between the parties, that the first partyshall pay a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) to thesecond party as financial security which includes FDR of Rs.50,000/-bearing No.31141242031 and FDR no.31141235806 of Rs.50,000/- whichwere made on 21.04.2010 in the joint name of the parties for a period offive years. These FDRs were made out of the money which was received bythe second party in the name of her daughter Smriti @ Riti at the time ofdivorce from her previous husband. The said two FDRs of Rs.50,000/-each shall be encashed immediately after the signing of this agreement andthe entire amount alongwith the interest shall be re-invested in the shape ofthe FDR in the name of the minor daughter Smriti@Riti under theguardianship of the second party till she attain the age of majority. b. It has also been agreed between the parties that out of the remainingamount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs only), the first party shall giveRs.3,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.78596 dated 04.01.2012 drownon State Bank of India Majilis Park, Delhi-110033, to the second party inher name at the time of signing of this agreement. The first party shall payRs.3,00,000/- through cheque to the second party after 3 months from thedate of signing of this agreement and the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- shall beHarvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur3paid by the first party to the second party in her name on or before30.09.2012.c. Both the parties to this agreement have agreed to live together ashusband and wife alongwith their children at I-21, Street No.35, 1st Floor,Mahendra Park, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 from the date of signing of thisAgreement/MOU. The second party shall withdraw her complaint from theoffice of the Crime Against Women Cell, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on thedate of signing of this agreement. Both the parties will take care of eachother and all the three children and give all love, affection and comforts tothem.

d. That the second party has no grievances against the family membersof the first party. She has no claim regarding istridhan, cash, gifts, etc.against the first party and his family members. On 2nd January, 2012, thesecond party has taken a separate locker in her name bearing No.9 withSyndicate Bank, Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-33 for keeping herjewelry, documents etc. The first party undertakes to return whateverjewelry of the second party is left with the first party against receipt. Inany case the second party shall not give any of her jewelry etc. to the firstparty in future. e. That in case the second party again leave company of the first partythen the second party and her daughter Smriti @ Riti shall not be entitledfor any maintenance from the first party and his family members before theCrime Against Women Cell or under Section 12 of the DV Act as well as forgrant of maintenance for herself and the minor daughter.f. That the parties will jointly move application under order 23 Rule 3read with Section 151 CPC alongwith the copy of this agreement in theproceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the sameshall be withdrawn by the first party. The second party shall alsowithdraw her complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, after encashment of the aforesaid cheque bearingNo.782596 dated 04.01.2012 drawn on State Bank of India Majlis Park,Delhi-110033. The second party will not press her application underSection 24 & 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.g. It has also been agreed between the parties that the second partyshall pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the first party out of her salary towardsthe contribution of the household expenses. The parties shall bear all theeducational and marriage expenses of all the three children. h. The parties shall make the best of their efforts to live in peace andHarvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur4adjust with each other and also maintain cordial relation. The parties shallnot make issues out of trivial matters. The parties shall respect, love andtrust 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 beinfluenced or prejudiced by any third party opinion. j. The parties shall make the best of their efforts to live happily witheach other alongwith their children as responsible parents. The partiesundertake 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 anormal, balanced, healthy and constructive manner. l. Any other litigation, complaint or case etc. filed against each otherby either of the parties before the court of law, authority etc. and notspecified hereinabove shall also be deemed and treated as withdrawn andnull and void. m. Both the parties undertakes that they shall have no grievances orclaim of any nature whatsoever against each other and shall live peacefullyalongwith their children for rest of their life.n. The parties further agree that they will be transparent in theirconduct and day to day activities. They undertake not to be influenced bythe 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 courttoday i.e. 03.02.2012 (SUJATA KOHLI)ADJ/WEST/DELHIHarvinder Singh Vs. Harjeet Kaur