PRIYANKA PANCHARIYA vs MURLI MANOHAR ALIAS BITTO
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 304/2023
MURLI MANOHAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal and Mr. Sumeet, Advocates.
versus
PRIYANKA PANCHARIYA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Aditya Ranjan and Mr. Pardeep,
Advocates.
AND
CRL.M.C. 1053/2023
PRIYANKA PANCHARIYA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Ranjan and Mr. Pardeep,
Advocates.
versus
MURLI MANOHAR ALIAS BITTO ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal and Mr. Sumeet, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide which Murli Manohar @ Bittu has been directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to Priyanka Panchariya from the date of filing of the petition. While Murli Manohar has assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessment of his monthly income by the Family Court is incorrect; Priyanka Panchariya has sought enhancement of the interim maintenance granted to her.
2. Considering that the petitions emanate from the same impugned order, the same are taken up for consideration together and disposed of vide this common order. For the ease of reference, Murli Manohar is referred as petitioner and Priyanka Panchariya is referred as respondent.
3. Notably, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.01.2017 however, on account of matrimonial disputes, they separated and the respondent left the matrimonial home on 22.03.2018 whereafter several proceedings came to be filed between them. In the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent alleged that petitioner was engaged in the businesses of flour mill, polarizer/spices grinding chakki and wholesale business of supply of wheat flour and spices. On the basis of the same, the respondent estimated the petitioners monthly income to be not less than Rs.1,50,000/-. Before the Family Court, the petitioner contended that respondent is well educated, having an M.Com and that she had voluntarily deserted the company of the petitioner. It was further noted that petitioner had taken a stand that at the time of their marriage, he was working at his friends lady garments shop and that he left the said job in August 2017. Since then, he had been working with his father at the aata chakki, where he used to get salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. He continued working there till June, 2018, whereafter he started working as a helper at a godown, earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month. The Family Court, after considering the averments as well as the income affidavits of the parties placed on record, noted that as per the income tax returns filed by the petitioner his gross income was declared as Rs.1.95 lacs, Rs.3.07 lacs and Rs.2.40 lacs for the financial years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. It was further noted that the petitioner comes from a business family. The Family Court also rejected the petitioners contention that he was employed as an employee at the aata chaki of his father and further that his father threw him out of the job, resulting in him taking employment at a godown, earning only Rs.9,000/- per month.
4. Income affidavits of both the parties have been placed on record. A perusal of the income affidavit of respondent would show that she has claimed to be residing at her parental home however, at the same time has claimed expenses of Rs.38,000/- per month towards rent, household expenses, medical bills, transportation etc. On the other hand, the petitioner has claimed himself to be unemployed.
5. The interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is based on the gross average income reflected in the ITRs. This Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order is reasonable and requires no interference at this stage. Consequently, the same is upheld.
6. It is informed that parties are yet to lead their respective evidence. Accordingly, it is clarified that in case at the time of disposal of the maintenance petition, the Family Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to lesser or higher maintenance, the Family Court would be at liberty to grant adjustment of the arrears either way.
7. Both the petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 20, 2024
ga
CRL.M.C. 304/2023 & CRL.M.C. 1053/2023 Page 1 of 3