KARTIKA GROVER vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

$~1 (SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 1st February, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 17386/2022 & CM APPL. 46599/2023
KARTIKA GROVER ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Paul & Ms. Geetu Paul, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate for R-4.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Sandeep Singh Somaria, Ms. Khushi Mangla, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 46599/2023 (for clarification)
2. This is an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the Petitioner-Kartika Grover (hereinafter, ‘the wife’) seeking clarification of the order dated 20th December, 2022 and directions to the Respondent No. 4-Nitin Grover (hereinafter, ‘the husband’).
3. The submission on behalf of the Applicant-Petitioner is that, vide the said order, the Court directed the Petitioner to vacate the matrimonial home i.e. the subject property belonging to the in-laws, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid by the Respondent No. 4/husband to the wife, contingent upon her vacating the matrimonial home and finding alternate accommodation. The said order was interpreted by the ld. Mahila Court 2 (North West District/Rohini Delhi) to the effect that if the Petitioner does not move to the rented accommodation and instead stays with her father, the amount of Rs.20,000/- need not be paid.
5. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 4 submits that the order merely meant that the Petitioner/wife ought to take rented accommodation, and only then, Rs.20,000/- would be liable to be paid.
6. The operative portion of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20th December, 2022 read as under:
“18. In the present case, the first notable feature that there is no domestic violence complaint against the in-laws. It is also noted that the in-laws are of advanced age and they are deprived of using their second property for rental income. It is also noticed that the husband is well-qualified and he is capable of maintaining his wife and daughter. Under such circumstances, there would be no justification in allowing the daughter-in-law to continue to occupy the subject property which is admittedly owned by the in-laws, when clearly an alternative accommodation can be provided to her.
19. Moreover, from the facts it also appears, that though there are allegations made by the daughter-in-law that the son and parents are in collusion, no proceedings are actually pending for divorce, maintenance, custody, etc. Thus, the position appears to be contrary to what is stated by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, even if it is presumed that there is a dispute between the son and daughter-in-law, there is an obligation upon the son to maintain his wife subject to any decision that may be given by the competent forum in respect of maintenance, etc. However, as against the parents, no notice has been issued under the DVA. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is because they were living separately by then.
20. Under these circumstances, this Court notes that it would be in the fitness of things to permit the parents/Respondent Nos.2&3 to exercise their rightful ownership of the subject property, subject to the Petitioner being given alternate accommodation or monthly payment towards alternate accommodation.
21. After hearing submissions of the parties, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly rental for enabling the Petitioner to find an alternate accommodation.
22. In the facts and circumstances of this case, by applying the guidelines laid down in Vinay Verma (supra), considering that the husband is willing to maintain his wife, it is directed as under:
(i) Respondent No.4 – the husband shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, on or before the 10th of every month, which shall be credited directly to the Petitioner’s bank account. The details of the said bank account shall be provided by the ld. counsel for the Petitioner to the ld. counsel for the Respondent No.4, within five days.
(ii) The Petitioner shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property by 15th January, 2023, to the parents i.e., Respondent Nos.2 and 3, after clearing all the dues payable on the subject property by the Petitioner, such as electricity/water charges/etc.
23. If there is any default by Respondent No.4 in making monthly maintenance payment, the Petitioner is permitted to approach the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, i.e., the Mahila Court where the Petitioner’s complaint is stated to be pending.”
7. From the above, it is evident that the Respondent No. 4/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as monthly rental to enable the Petitioner/wife to find an alternate accommodation. The Respondent No. 4/husband complied with the above directions and paid for three months but thereafter ceased paying the same. It is stated that the Petitioner/wife has already handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the property being ‘Ground Floor, SU – 151, Pitampura, New Delhi-110088’ in January, 2023 to the parents of the Respondent No. 4/husband. Thereafter, an application dated 6th May, 2023 was moved by the Petitioner/wife before the ld. Mahila Court seeking compliance of the orders passed by this Court. In the said application, vide order dated 20th May, 2024, the ld. Mahila Court directed as under:
“An application seeking issuance of direction to the respondent for compliance of order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is pending. Reply filed by the respondent in response to the said application. Copy supplied.

Application filed on behalf of the complainant seeking direction to supply certain documents is pending. Reply filed by the respondent in response to the said application.

In terms of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi respondent no. 1 herein is directed to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month as monthly rental for enabling the petitioner to find an alternative accommodation. With respect to the first application, complainant has submitted that she has not availed an alternate accommodation at present and is residing with her parents. In view of the same, since the complainant is residing with her parents respondent no. 1 need not make payment of Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Complainant is at liberty to file requisite documents regarding her alternate accommodation as and when she gets one

Matter is listed for arguments on Interim maintenance

However, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has submitted that he is not having a copy of income affidavit filed by the respondent in terms of latest guidelines on previous dates since he has been recently engaged by the complainant.

Ld. Counsel for complainant has further submitted that the respondent has not made payment of the school fees for the March to June Session till date. Ld.. Counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that there is some discrepancy in the challan issued by the school authority since they are claiming an arrear which is not due.

Respondent is directed to clear the school fees arrears within 15 days from today. Matter is adjourned today since the complainant does not have requisite income affidavit for arguments on application seeking interim maintenance.

At joint request, matter is referred to the mediation center on 27.05.2023 at 2:00 pm to explore the possibility of settlement.

Put up before this court for report of outcome if any failing which arguments on interim maintenance application on 26.08.2023.”

8. The ld. Mahila Court’s order has effectively stopped the payment of Rs.20,000/- by the Respondent No. 4/husband to the Petitioner/wife on the ground that she is residing with the parents. On a query from the Court, admittedly, the Petitioner/wife has not been receiving any maintenance.
9. Vide the said order the ld. Mahila Court directed the Respondent No. 4/husband to clear the school fees arrears within 15 days from the date of the said order. On this aspect, the ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/husband submits that the school fee and the mediclaim of the child has been paid.
10. It is also the submission of ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4/husband that for interim maintenance, the matter before the ld. Mahila Court is fixed on 2nd March, 2024. Admittedly, therefore, maintenance is currently being paid to the Petitioner/wife.
11. This Court is of the opinion the mere fact that the Petitioner/wife chose to not take a rented accommodation, does not mean that the amount in terms of order dated 20th December, 2022 would not be paid to the her. The directions of the Court vide order dated 20th December, 2022 are categorical that even if it is presumed that there is a dispute between the husband/Respondent No. 4 and the Petitioner, there is an obligation upon the husband/Respondent No. 4 to maintain the Petitioner/wife, subject to any decision that may be given by the competent forum in respect of maintenance, etc. As recorded in the said order, the husband/Respondent No. 4 had consented to maintain the Petitioner/wife, and only then was she directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property. Today, the husband/Respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to renege on the commitment made before this Court on 20th December, 2022.
12. Admittedly, the Petitioner/wife has left the matrimonial home and has handed over the vacant and peaceful possession to the in-laws. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No. 4/husband is bound to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- per month as directed vide order dated 20th December, 2022.
13. The ld. Mahila Court may take the above amount into consideration while fixing the interim maintenance as well. Any arrears which have not been paid, shall be paid within four weeks, failing which, action would be liable to be taken against the Respondent No. 4/husband.
14. Application is disposed of in these terms.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 01, 2024
Rahul/dn

W.P.(C) 17386/2022 Page 2 of 2