RAKESH BHATARA Vs. SAKSHI BHATARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dtd. 6/4/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-09, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner husband challenging the order dtd. 31/10/2023, passed by the learned Mahila Court-05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, in case titled as 'Sakshi Bhatara v. Rakesh Bhatara' was dismissed and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 per month to the respondent wife from the date of the filing of the petition till the final disposal.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondent wife had filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'D.V. Act'), seeking reliefs under Ss. 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the said Act. During the proceedings, both parties had filed their respective income affidavits. The learned Mahila Court had, vide order dtd. 24/2/2021, directed the petitioner husband to pay ad interim maintenance of Rs.12,000.00 per month to the respondent wife. Subsequently, the respondent wife had preferred an appeal under Sec. 23 of the D.V. Act. The learned Trial Court had, vide order dtd. 31/10/2023, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.33,000.00 per month, payable from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent wife had filed an appeal challenging the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had disposed of both Criminal Appeal Nos. 393/2023 and 396/2023 by a common judgment dtd. 6/4/2024, whereby the maintenance amount had been further enhanced from Rs.33,000.00 to Rs.1,00,000.00 per month. The petitioner husband had also been directed not to sell his property without obtaining prior permission from the learned Mahila Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner husband has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had failed to consider the grave medical condition of the petitioner, who is suffering from Ankylosing Spondylitis, a chronic and incurable disease that requires continuous treatment, care, and assistance. It is submitted that the petitioner has to incur medical expenses amounting to approximately Rs.1,56,000.00 per month, and in the absence of such expenditure, his life would be at serious risk. It is further argued that the respondent wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and has made no effort to return or reconcile. She is admittedly an able-bodied person, fully capable of maintaining herself. Moreover, she has not satisfactorily explained the basis of her claimed monthly expenditure, which she pegs at Rs.2,00,000.00, as per her income affidavit dtd. 4/7/2022. Of this, Rs.50,000.00 per month are stated to be spent on her sons, both of whom are major and therefore not legally entitled to maintenance under the D.V. Act. The respondent has claimed that she earns Rs.12,000.00 per month, and that the remainder of her expenses are met by borrowings, which, the petitioner submits, lacks credibility and specificity. The learned counsel further argues that even assuming the petitioner's income to be Rs.2,00,000.00 per month, as alleged, the direction to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 as maintenance is grossly disproportionate and not sustainable in law. It is also pointed out that the petitioner's income, as reflected in his income tax returns, has been consistently decreasing over the years, and he has no family support to care for his daily and medical needs. It is submitted that the petitioner husband requires the assistance of a domestic help, driver, cleaner, and dresser, and is compelled to seek treatment from private medical institutions, resulting in substantial monthly expenditure. It is further argued that the marriage between the parties was a second marriage, and the petitioner had accepted the respondent along with her two sons from her first marriage, demonstrating his good faith and intentions. Lastly, it is contended that the respondent wife had never been subjected to any domestic violence at the hands of the petitioner, and has unjustifiably chosen to abandon him despite his deteriorating health. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order awarding enhanced maintenance be set aside or suitably modified, keeping in view the financial constraints and medical condition of the petitioner.