The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging a Family Court order granting monthly maintenance to the respondent wife and children. The court found no perversity in the award of maintenance given the appellant's financial status and possessions.
The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order dated August 17, 2012 stands affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~1
KAWAL BAHADUR SINGH BATRA ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv.
versus
JAS KIRAN KAUR ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms.Malvika Rajkotia & Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 10.08.2016
CM No. 1311/2014
CM No. 12110/2015
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014
Page 1 of 6
“11. Admittedly, an agreement had taken place between the parties at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 18.03.2009 whereby the petitioner had agreed to pay ` 50,000/- per month to the respondent and further agreed to bear all education expenses of both the children including school fees, transportation, books and stationery, uniform, tuitions etc. The petitioner has been adhering to the aforesaid terms of the agreement but since April, 2011, has failed to comply the terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement for the reasons stated in his submissions.
12. Looking into the financial capacity of the petitioner alongwith family business being carried out by him alongwith other family members in Japan, his share in the property in Delhi and the life style as depicted in the pleadings, the petitioner is directed to comply the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 18.03.2009. It would not be out of place to mention here that on the basis of the settlement dated 18.03.2009, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR registered under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC against the petitioner and his family members on 05.05.2009. After having availed the benefits of the agreement, now the petitioner cannot wriggle out of it. Since the respondent/wife remained gainfully employed with Mitsubishi company w.e.f. August, 2009 to May,
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014
Page 2 of 6
2011, therefore, she will not be entitled to any maintenance till May, 2011. However, both the children shall get _50,000/- per month towards maintenance from the petitioner from the date of the filing of the present application u/s 24 of H M Act i.e. 22.12.2010. The petitioner is directed to pay_ 50,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent w.e.f. June, 2011. He shall also bear the educational expenses of both the children, as per the terms of the settlement deed dated 18.03.2009. The arrears of monthly maintenance be cleared within four months from today.”
(ii) He had already parted with substantial amount i.e. more than `15,00,000/- for which no account has been rendered by the respondent. (iii) The appellant had been meeting his liability and responsibilities by
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014
Page 3 of 6
encashing his fixed deposits or taking loan against those FDRs and against his life insurance which now stands depleted.
(iv) The Family Court did not consider his plea that his wife was employed.
(v) His detailed affidavit giving comprehensive account of his personal financial assessment has not been considered by the Family Court to appreciate that his financial condition has changed dramatically after the settlement before the mediation.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014
Page 4 of 6
50,000/- to the children which had already been agreed in the settlement before the Mediator, awarded 50,000/- as maintenance to the wife with effect from June, 2011.50,000/- towards maintenance of two grown up children apart from educational expenses and 50,000/- to the wife per month cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as exorbitant.MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014
Page 5 of 6
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
AUGUST 10, 2016/ ‘pg’
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 5/2014
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance to the wife and children is illegal or perverse.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's assessment of the appellant's financial capacity and the maintenance amount.
Whether the appeal against the Family Court order dated August 17, 2012 should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj HegdeFollowed¶41
140(2007) DLT 16 Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kawal Bahadur Singh Batra
Jas Kiran Kaur
Pradeep Nandrajog
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 against a decree or order of a Family Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court